Saturday, November 08, 2008
|
|
The GOP's Upcoming Struggle
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
3:22 PM
|
Jeffrey Bell's "Guide to Elite Opinion" in The Weekly Standard touches on one of the most important themes that the GOP will be dealing with going forward:
The reason elite opinion makers are set on destroying [Sarah Palin] is fear. They sense that like Ronald Reagan, and unlike, say, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, she really, genuinely doesn't care what they think, and for that reason is willing and able to go over their heads and make a strong, direct appeal to voters.
Bell tangentially alludes to the upcoming struggle in the Republican Party. In my view, it isn't between moderates and conservatives, or south vs. west, or affluent vs. no-so-affluent. It's between those with an elitist/inside-the-beltway outlook and the down-to-earth types like Sarah Palin.
Inside the beltway elitism is always going to be destructive to conservatives because DC is the home of government. It inculcates a mindset that's overly concerned with the media, amenable to the tropes that end up benefiting liberals (like "bipartisanship") and out-of-touch with regular people.
Indeed, failure to think outside the beltway box was part of John McCain's problem -- his internalizing of Beltway values, for example, was why it made sense to him to try to return to Washington and negotiate the bailout. That was "bipartisan" and "responsible." The problem? It wasn't good politics in the end, and Barack Obama knew it. He was neither "bipartisan" (ever) or "responsible" -- and he's the president-elect now.
Republicans will never be able to win and win big with a candidate who cares what the beltway elites think. Ronald Reagan didn't care, Sarah Palin doesn't care -- and in his finest moments (for example, in executing the war on terror and protecting America) President Bush hasn't cared. That's a lesson for those who believe that it's possible to find a principled conservative who's a good communicator and simultaneously adored by the Beltway establishment. It will never happen.
|
|
|
Great post. I'd give you five stars if I could. Spot on. |
|
hosting a daytime show talking about news and conservative views. She could have on conservative authors,...
opposite Couric or Oprah.
I think she'd be more influencial there than as a Gov, Sen, VP, or POTUS. Well, maybe not POTUS. |
|
Listen people McCain/Palin,
got almost 60 million votes,
Governor Sarah Palin is the new star of the Republican Party,
I like Romney, Rudy, Pawlenty, Crist, Steel, Huckabee,fred,Boehner,
and the rest of the candidates,
and they know that Governor Sarah Palin can attract huge crowds,
even with the MSM against her,
John McCain and Sarah Palin,
got almost 60 million votes,
Sarah Palin is in the Future of the Republican Party,
and we have to work together,
Romney/Palin, Palin/Romney, Rudy/Palin,
one thing for sure we will see Sarah Palin
in 2012 along with Romney and Rudy. |
|
Listen people McCain/Palin,
got almost 60 million votes,
Governor Sarah Palin is the new star of the Republican Party,
I like Romney, Rudy, Pawlenty, Crist, Steel, Huckabee,fred,Boehner,
and the rest of the candidates,
and they know that Governor Sarah Palin can attract huge crowds,
even with the MSM against her,
John McCain and Sarah Palin,
got almost 60 million votes,
Sarah Palin is in the Future of the Republican Party,
and we have to work together,
Romney/Palin, Palin/Romney, Rudy/Palin,
one thing for sure we will see Sarah Palin
in 2012 along with Romney and Rudy. |
|
Well said, Ms. Liebau! You've nailed it regarding the incompatibility between conservatism and elitism---and how it relates to the criticism Governor Palin is getting from the "inside the beltway" types in the Republican party.
Great blog.
|
|
I'm tired of you downplaying Palin's experience as governor of AK.
You said:
"Palin would have more cred if she had governed CA, or MASS, or Michigan or NY any near as effectively as she's governed AK."
She lives in Alaska so she took advantage of the hand that was dealt her. I guess you want her to move to another state and govern there? What a joke. I notice you mention Mass., which is a typical boost for Romney. There's only one problem: Romney has a mixed record as Governor of Mass. I know, I live there. It seems to me that a governor from an obscure state called Arkansas did very well for himself. So, let's not kid ourselves about being a governor from Alaska. Being the governor of any state is a great responsibility, especially an oil-rich state. |
|
In fact, given all the media scrutiny/attacks and pressure, she did just fine overall. She gave many interviews over the course of the campaing AFTER Couric and Gibson and did just fine. Her 'gotcha' interviews with Gibson and Couric were embarrassing - to Gibson and Couric. But her interviews with Greta, Brian Williams, Rush, Laura and Hannity were subsequently more well received. It's strange we don't hear more about them. As usual, the nattering naybobs of negativism like to accentuate her stumbles. That's fine.
So no, Sarah doesn't make me feel embarrassed at all. On the contrary, she makes me proud to be a conservative. I may not agree with her on all issues, but you won't agree with everyone on all issues anyway. If she plays her cards right, she will have a bright future in politics. I have no doubt she will gain a better mastery of the issues in the future. But she is one step up on every other Republican right now, for various reasons. And we saw those reasons on the campaign trail. Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee cannot compete with her on the campaign trail. And she will raise so much money in the Republican party it will be ridiculous. The only other guy that intrigues me is Jindal. |
|
First, we really neeed to discuss what the "elites" are. Within the Republican Party they are neo-conservatives which are really soft former Democtas who increase government spending and pay lip service to conservative social issues, both Bush Presidents were cut from this clothe. Most of the grassroot Republican base are
traditionalists conservatives like Ronald Reagan who would kill any new government program that came to the oval office. Reagan never would have signed on to the bailout, campaign finance reform, or the prescription drug program. He did grant amnesty to illegals because he knew that we could never hope to deport millions of illegals and he figured that we would fix our borders so that this would not happen again. When have the neo-cons ever argued for securing the borders? Thus we have a battle of the elites = neo-cons, Sarah Palin = traditionalists conservatives and Ronald Reagan. Remember in both 1976 and 1980 the neo-cons opposed Reagan but Reagan being a populist went straight to the grassroots for support.
The second point is the non-intellectual presidents who were populists have done very well. Consider President Andrew Jackson who had a 90% approval rating. Also, President Theodore Roosevelt, and President Reagan himself. After all look were "intellectual neo-conservatism" has taken us! |
|
Willt65
You say to me: "You are in the minority of Republicans when you say Palin embarrassed all Republicans. 91 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of her, according to Rasmussen."
You are missing the point. Here is what I said:
"The exposure of her ignorance on national TV was a major embarrassment for the Republicans"
and
"she embarassed all Republicans in her interviews with the MSM and even Sean Hannity."
Recalling the Hannity snippets above made me wince.
Overall, she was highly inspirational, more accomplished than Obama, a real reformer, a true conservative, a great communicator on the stump (drew bigger crowds than McCain), and delivered the best convention speech ever, etc... I don't disagree on these points. My point is that we should expect a greater mastery of the issues from someone who represents our party (e.g., Jindal, Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, etc.). Maybe in 4-8 years she'll be at the right level, but not now. |
|
Does this also inspire confidence? What about Fannie & Freddie? Mortgages...?
HANNITY: Who is responsible for these failing institutions, in your view?
PALIN: I think the corruption on Wall Street — that is to blame. And that violation of the public trust. And that contract that should be inherent in corporations who are spending, investing other people's money — the abuse of that is what has got to stop.
And it's a matter, too, of some of these CEOs and top management people and shareholders too not holding that management accountable, being addicted to, we call it, OPM — O-P-M, "other people's money."
Spending that, investing that, not using the prudence that we expect of them. But here again, government has got to play an appropriate role in the stringent oversight, making sure that those abuses stop. |
|
Does this inspire confidence?
HANNITY: Let's talk about, Governor, obviously, the economy is on the minds of many Americans. We've got Lehman, we've got Merrill, we've got AIG. Senator Barack Obama yesterday was attacking Senator McCain for saying that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."
Do you believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong?
PALIN: Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American. And of course, that is strong and that is the foundation of our economy.
So that was an unfair attack there, again, based on verbiage that John McCain used. Certainly it is a mess though, the economy is a mess. And there have been abuses on Wall Street and that adversely affects Main Street.
And it's that commitment that John McCain is articulating today, getting in there, reforming the way that Wall Street has been allowed to work, stopping the abuses and that violation of the public trust that too many CEOs and top management of some of these companies, that abuse there has got to stop.
It is, somebody was saying this morning, a toxic waste there on Wall Street, affecting Main Street. And we've got to cure this. |
|
|
You were able to articulate many thoughts of my own in a much better way than I was doing. Knowledge (mistaken for intelligence) is easily learned-anyone can study facts. But what do you then do with those facts? You must be able to analyze those facts, with what you already know and form some sort of coherent thought process regarding said facts. Sometimes, you may require more facts in order to do so. When one can actually take what they know and apply it to a certain situation or problem in an effort to actually come up with a working solution, then you're talking leadership! |
|
|
After a quick analysis of what motivates people to choose a leader, especially based on this election and looking at former popular leaders such as FDR and Reagan, a charimatic ability to communicate directly to each and every individual was paramount. As much as I detest the socialist Obama, this is a quality he possesses as well as former charismatic demogogues such as Hitler. After watching Pahlin in action and, especially, the crowd reactions to her performance, she has this innate ability. Bush does not have this ability, it's just that the candidates he opposed were much worse. So, where does that leave Sarah Pahlin in terms of her political future? She appears to have common sense, that ability to honestly and accurately interpret internalized information, which I define as true intelligence. She has this charismatic ability to personally connect with the individual voter. Is she the only conservative politician with these attributes? I don't know. Perhaps it will be Bobby Jindal, a politician with a charismatic touch that has the academic credentials that so impress the arrogant intellectual elites. Only time will tell. I have this sneaking hunch that ordinary Americans will relate much more quickly to the plain talking Pahlin than to some boring, intellectual sounding elitest and there are many more ordinary Americans. But, again, only time will tell. |
|
These posts appear to endlessly go nowhere. You argue about Sarah Pahlin's intelligence, ignorance, popularity, and overall significance to the GOP's future without really stopping to think about the leadership factor. Apparently some of you are impressed with some type of preconceived idea of outward displays of intelligence that some candidates appear to have without really thinking about what truly consititutes intelligence. Is intelligence the ability to parrot internalized information with a William F. Buckley vocabulary, or is it something more significant? I learned a long time ago while attending college and graduate school that all that was required to attain an advanced degree was a quasi savant ability to internalize and regurgitate whatever garbage one wants to put into his little pea picking brain. Truly intelligent people are the ones that can take internalized information and generalize it to a logical and rational conclusion. That's what was so depressing about the responses to Pahlin's so called performances to the Couric and Gibson interviews. She was simply asked gotcha questions that only required parroted responses to internalized information, not to analyse hypothetical situations which would really show how she thinks or is able to think. That is what is so depressing about reading these posts. Many of you have simply fallen for this ruse.
|
|
Fresh faces are needed in our political system. The government has with the latest election proven to be the largest non-productive state system of entitlement enablers in the history of the modern world.
No only must any new face be from outside the beltway...the beltway itself should be dispensed with completely.
As the US Constitution is about to become secondary to the UN mandates, and a security force amounting to a standing army is to be raised up INSIDE the United States as announced by Obama and his Obamanites, the end of freedom as envisioned by our forefathers who wrote the Constitution is coming to an end.
The standing army will no doubt act to prop up the incumbents just like an African Junta, and the leadership which is about to be installed will then be impossible to remove, as the standing army will no doubt act to prevent any future elections which might cause their "leader" to take away their entitlements.
Remember the Alamo! |
|
..a sparsely populated, oil rich state, in which she can give oil money to every citizen. And people love her style up there.
But the US is not a sparsely populated oil rich country. Saudi Arabia maybe, but not the US.
Palin would have more cred if she had governed CA, or MASS, or Michigan or NY any near as effectively as she's governed AK. |
|
...re: immigration are "just fine," then you have a problem.
Palin and Barack are two sides of the same coin in many ways. Giving prepared speeches they can be compelling. Talking about areas in which they have strong opinions or knowledge, they are "just fine."
But they are young, inexperienced (Barack more than Palin, that's fer sure), and when they get into areas of which they are ignorant, they speak gibberish. They are basically incoherent.
Because they have their passionate followers who love their personalities and their story, a bunch of people don't seem to notice.
But a bunch of people do.
Barack was able to win because he had the entire Dem party behind him, a lot of Hollywood money, the entire black community, the labor unions, a huge internet network, ACORN, etc. etc.
Palin has none of it. Yeah, Rasmussen had her high with Pubs, but that won't last. And other polls had her down.
Because she has no money and no machine, she is going to have to get there with more than personality. |
|
|
You are in the minority of Republicans when you say Palin embarrassed all Republicans. 91 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of her, according to Rasmussen. In addition, I think you have selective memory syndrome. Did you not see/hear the many other TV/radio interviews she did on the campaign trail? I guess you missed them..lol. She did just fine, overall. Go hang out with other RINOs like David Brooks, David Frum and Peggy Noonan. All inside-the-beltway RINOs who enjoy the cocktail circuit in Washington, D.C. |
|
out there and it was obvious by her interviews. But I believe she was quite presidential in the policy addresses she gave on special needs children and energy issues.
The thing to remember is that personality counts. Much more than it should in regards to competence. A candidate can be as brilliant as h*ll but if he/she can't get anyone to listen because they're boring, condescending with their intelligence or flat out uninteresting and uninspiring, what's the point? Electing Obama proved that experience can be trumped by personality and the power of likability.
The problem becomes finding someone who is experienced, smart (no matter their formal education) who can articulate their policies and perform well in interviews and press conferences combined with a reassuring, interesting and likable personality.
|
|
Sarah Palin appears to be ignorant on many important matters. That is an obvious fact, and it's not irrelevant to her qualifications to be a party leader. The exposure of her ignorance on national TV was a major embarrassment for the Republicans, and for John McCain (who either didn't vet her, or didn't care, neither of which is a good sign). If you guys can't deal with reality, you're going to destroy the party. Sometimes the truth hurts.
So how is it "elitist" to point out her flaws? You guys want to make it "politically incorrect" to call a spade a spade. That's supposed to be the liberals' forte.
Look, she embarassed all Republicans in her interviews with the MSM and even Sean Hannity. Hannity pitched her softball after softball, and she struck out. Virtually everone on this blog could have done a better job.
Since when is it elitist to require your leaders to have a mastery of the issues? I'm starting to agree with David Brooks that a person like Sarah Palin can turn into a cancer for the party. |
|
I'm just enjoying deconstructing your guy, Mitt. I'm hostile because I pointed out his failings and fallacies? Oh well, the truth hurts lol
You aren't promoting Mitt? haha....You are funny. Have a good night. |
|
You are the one with thin skin. And I'm not necessarily promoting Mitt. You just seem biased and not very clear-eyed about Mitt or Palin.
Yes, I understand that personality is extremely important in elections. There are all kinds of capable people who could never get elected in today's world. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind.
You certainly seem like a very hostile person. |
|
I'm someone who really doesn't know all that much about Palin and where she stands on the issues, because the press was preoccupied with asking her other things like what book she reads or other "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader" questions.
But some of what I heard on the campaign trail threw up flags for me, like greedy Wall Street was to blame without making the case that there was too much government interference in the first place. I also didn't like how she and McCain were so proud to work with the other side, I can see how there is need to, but I don't like that they make it a badge of honor. I want someone who is going to fight those in the party that need to be dealt with, but don't make it a campaign talking point.
I really do think that the reason why she resonated so well with the base is her unabashed pro-life position, and that shielded more of her more moderate views on everything else.
|
|
You are thin-skinned. Where did I insult you? Cite it. In case you haven't figured it out, personality means a lot in elections. Being the smartest guy in the room doesn't mean you will be a successful president. Richard Nixon comes to mind.
Sorry you don't like to hear about Mitt's record and many flip-flops, but facts are facts. And I haven't augmented her accomplishments. I have simply said she is a grown up doing a grown-up's work. You are the one who has consistently insulted her. And I won't waste my time going back and citing the insults. We can all read your previous posts about her.
You stick with Mitt. I'm going in another direction. I've stated my reasons. |
|
|
...anybody running in 2012 will just be a sacrificial lamb. Give 'em Huck. |
|
...friend. I am not insulting her so don't insult me. I am analyzing her demeanor for maximum votes. Yes, she is flirty/girly/ and the girl next door. That's exactly how she got to be mayor and governor: likeability in addition to her accomplishments. That's exactly how she draws the crowds. I'm not diminishing her accomplishments in AK.
But you make my point. You like her personality, but you don't like Mitt's personality...so you are trying to augment her accomplishments and diminish Mitt's.
I say Palin needs to take her raw gifts and her conservative values and develop a more knowledgeable presidential manner.
If you think she's good to go right now, that's fine. But a bunch of people are going to need to see more before they will vote for her to be the leader of the Free World.
People need to believe she knows what she's doing. |
|
You have to be kidding me...Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry..PHONY!!!!!!
he doesn't appeal to the main st. voter...and he's a conservative by convenience.
HUCKABEE 2012!! |
|
He has a long record of flip flops on several very important issues, including abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, gun control, immigration and campaign finance reform. Too many for me. He raised fees considerably while governor. He helped pass a government-mandated healthcare program in Mass. This calls into question his conservative credentials. He has some serious credibility problems here. You can call it "evolving." If so, he has evolved into a different person.
In addition, I describe him as robotic and lacking passion because it supports the notion that he will not light a fire under voters. People find it difficult to identify with him. He does not attract middle-class voters. He is a little too polished for his own good.
I haven't decided who I'm going to support for 2012, but I know who I will not be supporting - Romney.
|
|
Or at least said he would not. His father did and said it was the worst decision of his life--that you called to run a big, unresponsive bureaucracy and have to take orders from some little messenger from the White House.
Now, Treasury Secretary? That might be different. But it ain't happening. The Dems are in the driver's seat and it will take some real strong Pub leaders to get them out.
There are guys on the bench: Ryan, Cantor, Jindal if you don't like Romney's personality. Nobody's going fire up crowds like Palin--but you have to be able to do more than fire up crowds. You have to have the juice to actually govern. |
|
Yes, he changed his position on abortion. He's admitted he was wrong. He declared he would be for gay rights. Who isn't? But that was well prior to the gay marriage issue. He's since came out in favor of striking down Roe and a Traditional Marriage Amendment.
His PAC gave $200,000 to Prop 8. Yes, he attempted to do health insurance in Mass, realizing that they were already spending the money for health care anyway.
You are right; he has changed, grown and evolved. But there is no reason that he has convictions of convenience at this point. He is settled.
But, whom would you rather have making decisions re: the economy right now? Go find his interview with Fortune Magazine. FM is not interviewing Palin on the economy that I know of.
Whom would you rather have looking eye ball to eye ball with Putin/Mededev over missiles in Poland. Palin can talk all she wants about "blinking," put that's just silly, really.
I don't care diddly-do-dah if you think Mitt is "robotic." He has a long record of many accomplishments, can put two sentences together and I would rather have him leading the economy and meeting with foreign leaders than Palin. At least for now.
Everybody needs time to grow. Mitt did; perhaps Palin can. |
|
|
...does act like a grown up. Your consistent insults are quite revealing. She does not personify a "fun-loving girl next door" nor does she accentuate some sort of "flirty/girly stuff" - whatever that means. You don't get to be city councilor, mayor and governor of a state by acting immature. Until you lose the ridiculous insults you will have no credibility. Any legitimate points you may have will fall on deaf ears. Let's get it straight - she is the governor of a state - she is going "grown up's" work already. |
|
Willt 65:
I hadn't thought of Romney in terms of a cabinet post but I would agree with you.
|
|
...as pointing out that Sarah has some work to do. Her personality is appealing and I'm not discounting her accomplishments in AK.
But she has to sell her bona fides to the American people and to the world. I have little respect for Obama's abilities; he's never accomplished anything of note. There is nothing in his record to indicate he is prepared to be POTUS.
But he sold himself to the people and the world.
Leaders cannot lead if they cannot command respect. Personality is important, but not enough. Palin needed to have a greater command of the issues and the ability to explain them well.
She gave the impression of faking it--as in the quote re: immigration alove....juch saying words because she really doesn't have a well-thought out opinion. Barack's the same way and has snookered a bunch of people.
My point: If Palin has national aspirations, she needs to do what Reagan did: Spend years honing her vision and her ability to express it. Tone down the flirty/girly stuff a little and act like a grown-up who can do a grown-up's work. |
|
|
Romney lacks passion and fire, so it's difficult to get excited about the guy. In addition, he is a major league flip-flopper so it brings into question his convictions. He doesn't light a fire under the Republican base, either. Romney seems better suited to a Cabinet position within an administration. |
|
KG:
While in the end I voted for Romney in the pimary he was my not my first choice. One of his big problems with us was that his campaign rhetoric did not match what he said or did as Mass. Governor. That led a lot of us to think he was a man of "Flexible Convictions". Certainly preferable to McCain or Obama but not someone I would have any enthusiasm for. |
|
|
Romney couldn't win the primary, despite outspending everyone. He lacks passion. He is robotic. He was a mediocre governor. BTW, Sarah is NOT the "fun-loving girl next door." Show some respect for the Governor of Alaska. Otherwise, you are starting to sound like a typical liberal. Her favorable rating is 91% among Republicans. No one else comes close. |
|
Sarah's the fun-loving girl next door, but if she wants to be POTUS, she needs to assume a more presidential demeanor.
Mitt fit right in with Netanyahu and Gingrich, making a speech at the Hertzeliya Conference in Israel. Because Sarah's flirty and girly, she has to work twice as hard to convince us she knows her stuff.
Palin would look like an idiot on the world stage where leaders are expected to appear formal and knowledgeable.
Barack knows less than Palin, but his unHolywood buddies have given him acting lessons. Did you notice how still he stood at the last debate, while Mack bounced around all over the stage?
Hollywood trained Barack to look presidential. Some Americans are charmed by Palin's down-home style, but most will not be amused.
On the world stage Mitt would command respect. Reagan commanded respect. So did Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir and others.
Unless Palin can learn appear more presidential, a great many are going to see her as a ditz. |
|
There are small town on the east coast too. I know, I live in one in a very blue, always blue east coast state. I can sort of see how that can be taken as offensive by someone who considers themselves non-small town (?) but it certainly is not on par with the bitter clingers comment and it really is a stretch to say that it is. This comment isn't really class warfare, it's more like urban v. rural? My first instinct when reading this comment is that she was attempting to appeal to the middle class, as was every politician in the last election cycle so it isn't all that shocking. I want to hear what she has to say away from the influence of McCain and the "handlers"...if she starts making divisive comments, then I'll know she is divisive.
I don't believe this is hypocritical on my part because I simply don't see the comments on par with one another. Obama's was meant as a slam on small town folks, implying that they are ignorant. Palin's, while giving praise to small town folks, certainly doesn't imply that non small town people are in any way ignorant. Further, while her use of the word "best" is not the best (pardon the pun), it also doesn't automatically imply that non small town folk are the worst. But picking on one word is just a bit, well...picky. Obama's whole comment was negative; Palin's whole comment was positive. Big difference.
|
|
|
As a Mass. resident, I know all too well that Romney was a mediocre governor. I lived it. Government-mandated healthcare, fee increases, flip-flops, etc. He does not connect with the middle class. He has the demeanor of a CEO in a boardroom conference call. Romney sounds robotic. He lacks passion. There's a reason why he didn't win the primary this year. In fact, there were many reasons. He couldn't buy his way to the nomination, either. |
|
A buncha folks love Palin for being "down-to-earth" and "one of the gang." Her convention speech was hillarious. She's novel, she's entertaining and I love her story: Who doesn't love the girl who can kill a moose? That takes gutz.
But are those really qualities that are needed for POTUS? More than anything, a POTUS needs to be knowledgeable, articulate, convincing and confidence-inspiring. Not just at the teleprompter, but for real.
Romney's public personna may not so likeable; but he is more knowledgeable, articulate, convincing and confidence-inspiring.
Now maybe Romney's not your guy either. But in a match up for actually governing as POTUS? Come on. No contest. |
|
Now you are being disingenuous when you say you aren't trying to slam Palin. Come on. I'm sure we all know your motives here. You are a Romney supporter. Palin's comments are by no means equivalent to Obama's "bitter clingers" comment. You have lost your credibility. The difference between Obama and Palin learning on the job is this: Obama was running for President ! Palin was running for VP - big difference !! I would argue that the president has many more responsibilities immediately... LOL !!
In addition, Romney created a lot of enemies on the campaign trail because he was so negative against his opponents. No one liked the guy. In addition, the voters didn't like him either. He couldn't buy the primary. So don't talk to me about being divisive. |
|
Here's my I-live-15-miles-from-the-border-reality.
1)Build the fence where it's feasible. Sixty miles of it has worked in San Diego County.
2)It hasn't been well published, but there is inreased enforcement. They have deported 1000's just recently from 43 different countries.
3. Employment verification cards. Employers are heavily fined if they hire illegals.
4. Felony identity theft if you use someone else's SS#. These arrests are going on now.
5. Beef up the border patrol and give them more political support.
6. Make public how much illegal immigration costs the country. This is a US gov't problem. Border states should receive payment from DC for the cost.
7. Refuse WIC and other social programs to illegals. Right now, WIC advertises in Tijuana for people to come up and and sign up. Why? Do grow their bureaucratic fiefdoms.
Currently there is no political will. The public needs to be made aware of the dangers. Mexico is in the middle of a civil war. Bodies w/o heads are found often in the streets. Narco gangs are flooding the US, making cities uninhabitable.
As lay-offs occur, there will be more and more illegals on social services. These jobs and services should go to legal workers.
It's not nativist to protect your borders. It's national suicide if you don't. This cannot continue forever--even tho the Dems want votes and the Pubs want slaves.
Palin does not have her brain around border issues. And I don't believe it was simply because she had to parrot McCain. |
|
|
Start enforcing the laws, at every level, local, state and federal. It is working in the places that are doing it. Prince William County VA has had an exodus of illegals and all they are doing is checking anyone who comes in contact with law enforcement(ie, traffic stops, etc) for immigration status. Once word got out that you would be held for ICE, they left on their own. Do that everywhere and they will go home. |
|
I'm not trying to discount Sarah Palin. I'm trying to explain why alot of us Romney supporters don't really care for her. I'm not here to slam Palin. I just clarify where we are coming from; not from hate, but from a different point of view of conservatism.
Also, even though you may have found her comments acceptable. It isn't to majority of Americans that are tired of divisive politics. Palin's comments are paramount to the same things that Obama said about the people of PA, "who cling to guns and religion". It is the exact same thing we slammed Obama on for months, but from our point of view. To find these comments acceptable screams of hypocrisy. The independents and blue dog dems can clearly see that. Why are willing to accept this double standard? Why is it that Obama cannot learn on the job, but Palin can? The Vp is supposed to ready at moments notice. When people say she can learn on the job it screams of hypocrisy. When McCain talks about nationalizing mortgages and Palin is repeating those talking points on the campaign trail while calling Obama a socialist it screams of hypocrisy. |
|
|
Ok, for the sake of arguments, let's say there are 30 million illegals here. So how do you deport them by attrition? Let's hear it. And if they have children, do you deport them too? Let's hear your solution. I would like to hear a real solution to this. It sounds great on paper. Let's hear reality. |
|
|
Ronald Reagan was not considered an intellectual. End of story. You stick with the elitists, I'll stick with down to earth Americans with good judgment and sound values. You hang with the Starbucks, arts and croissants, NY Times crowd. Have fun ! |
|
|
It's more like 30 million illegal aliens, not 12 million. The government is lying to us about the numbers. They are also lying about the impossiblity of deporting them all. It is not necessary to deport them all. Arizona and Oklahoma and many localities have shown that simply enforcing the laws gets them to leave on their own. Attrition through enforcement is our only chance to keep our country. Amnesty is surrender. If you choose surrender, learn Spanish. I choose to fight for the rule of law and American sovereignty. The citizens shut down the Capitol communications last summer when they rose up in anger to defeat the last attempt at amnesty. We will do it again and again if necessary. |
|
So? What's wrong with her comments? Sounds good to me !! Is that the best you can do to discount her? Keep hanging out with your boy, Romney, who is going nowhere fast. As a Mass. resident, I know all too well that he was a mediocre governor. His Convention speech was a real barn burner huh? Even the crickets didn't show up for that one !! lol
Go run with the David Frum, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan crowd - all elitists too. Or better yet, tune into your favorite programs on MSNBC. |
|
Here is an excerpt from the link that I just provided:
Sarah Palin -
"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."
She continued: "This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."
________________________________________________________________________
Sarah clearly divides the country into pro-american areas. She said it. She also recognizes the soldiers and the regular people that drive our country forward. I am fine with that and think it's great. However, I think its unacceptable to not give the same or more recognition to highly intelligent people that are self made and accomplished just because they are considered to be "eastern elites". America now under this new president elect is no longer red, blue, black, or white. This type of divisive language Palin uses alienates the very people she is asking to take her seriously. It offended me. It probably offended some of the 6 million republicans that did not come out and vote this cycle. |
|
|
Palin helped McCain lose all the moderate/independents. Call them all elitist for using their God given brain -- your party has become the home for the proudly ignorant. What a message for America. But good luck with that in 2012... |
|
|
|
Do none if us realize that the entire Northeast is devoid of elected Republicans? An entire region of the US is a wasteland to us. The west and the north are now quickly following suit. If this continues we will only be the minority party of the South. How can Sarah Palin divide our country into pro-american states and at the same time imply that there are anti-american states. The majority of these anti-american states more than likely coming from the Northeast. So if I live in MA then I must be anti-american? Ridiculous.
As a party we much change course. Intellectualism and Exceptionalism are things to be revered not hated. We have to recognize that there are Blue State Republicans out there like Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, or Mitt Romney who all know how to win in blue states. In my own experience in MA we witnessed Romney get elected based off his record of success and high intelligence. In the end he proved that we made the decision in electing him.
Romney/Jindal 2012!!!
The smartest men in ANY room. |
|
|
You are a fountain of misinformation. Sarah never said that only people in small, pro-american towns should be recognized. Go back to reading Mother Jones and The New Republic. You sound elitist. |
|
I believe that Sarah Palin will lead us towards the road to destruction as a party. I don't hate Sarah nor do I think that the majority of Romney supporters do. Actually a lot of us generally like her as a person. However, what she represents to majority of us Romney supporters is appalling. Her populist sentiment and anti-intellectualism are the key factors for me and many others.
In America we tell our kids to go to school and get good grades. If they do really well there is an opportunity to be accepted at one of the most renowned Colleges or Universities in the country. From there you can either continue your studies towards a graduate degree or start on the path of your chosen career. If the man is son of Indian immigrants and attends an Ivy League University on the path to becoming a Rhode Scholar; he becomes Bobby Jindal. You take another person following the American ideal and he also attends an Ivy League University on the path to becoming a Baker Scholar with a Juris Doctor/MBA; he becomes Mitt Romney. One becomes a politician and the other highly successful business.
Sarah Palin would call them "elites". According to Sarah the only people that deserve to be recognized are all those people in small pro-american towns. We should revere joe-six pack and the unaccomplished. We should only listen to the people that sound like us and are in the middle class. Success is a disease that should be denounced. A rich person cannot earn their wealth, but must have always been rich. Therefore they could never know what it means to be middle class. Anyone else who doesn't agree are "elites" and thus they don't matter.
|
|
...the above quote on amnesty is an example of why I have doubts about her. I like clear-thinking, clear-talking politicians. The problem with Bush was his inability to articlulate plans and principles in a convincing way.
Same with Obama; he just blathers generalities and says nothing specific. It's maddening.
But when Palin says: "and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides."
...that makes no sense. It's totally inarticulate.
Perhaps she meant: "Our great country offers opportunities and services, which should be reserved for those who are here legally. Therefore, we need to defend the border by fighting tooth and toenail to prevent illegals from crossing.
But then, who knows what she's actually trying to say? That illegals should be the last in line to receive social services?
She seems not to know that every person who can get one foot on this side of the border has equal access to social services, including "affordable" housing. Illegals do not have to get at the end of the line for anything.
This was decided by the US 9th Circuit back in the '90's.
We have made great sport that Obama cannot speak w/o a telepromter but honesty, Palin has the same problem. I hate it that she does; but can you deny it? |
|
|
The bottom line is, its impossible to deport 12-14 million people, so in that sense, her instincts are correct. And anyone who thinks you can deport 12-14 million people are living in fantasyland. The ideal sounds great, but reality is quite different. As I said before, her comments about amnesty are up for debate. And I'm sure she was coached on her answers regarding amnesty, because there are several reports emerging about the coaching she received during the campaign. |
|
I agree with you that I would hate to see class warfare used by conservatives. There is no reason for it and yes, it is nothing more than dem-lite. I haven't heard Palin use this though but to be fair, I didn't hear a whole lot from her even during the campaign. The only thing that makes me think she wouldn't go down that path was her comment, possibly during the debates but I don't recall exactly, about how people need to take responsibility for themselves. I'm sorry that I don't remember the exact quote.
Frankly, I haven't seen enough of her to judge her competence or intelligence to a degree where I would be able to decide whether I feel she is or isn't qualified for POTUS. I'm sure I will have plenty of time to decide before the next race.
I wasn't aware that she had been angling for the vp slot for such a long while. Can you tell me more? |
|
Yeah, I see what you mean - I guess I was trying to make 2 points that don't necessarily go together. Sorry.
Anyway, Palin seems somewhat conservtive but for the few things I mentioned. I don't like our guys using class warfare/populism. That's dem-lite because it naturally takes you down the road of gov doing more for you, and taking more from those who produce. Palin sounds a lot more populist than I'm comfortable with - like Huckabee, B Clinton, and John Edwards, "I feel your pain".
Thing is, I don't think Palin has demonstrated intelligence or common sense - at least not in the quantity required to be POTUS. I'd be fine with an authentic, sort of regular person if they possessed the skills to do the job.
Palin seems to be an okay governor, but I didn't see anything in the campaign that would nake me have any confidence she could be president.
the other issue I have with her is that she's been angling for VP for at least a year. In that time she did little to prepare herself on the issues. That's revealing because she obviously thinks she didn't need to. The idea that she was suddenly chosen and didn't have time is not true. |
|
From the link Virginia Patriot provided:
As for amnesty, she says she’s against it; but qualifies that she’s only against “total amnesty.” One thing she is against without qualifications is deportations,
There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.
So what’s her alternative between “total amnesty” and deportations. If you guessed, “attrition through enforcement,” you’re wrong. Instead when she is asked “so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?” She responded,
"I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country."
She supports a path to citizenship for illegals, and would not send them home. |
|
From an interview a few weeks ago with Univision:
Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
"No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides."
Based on this answer and the previous quotes from her, I think the jury is still out on what her actual philosophy/plans would be. Until I hear something more definitive from her, I'm going to reserve judgment on this issue until she comes out with an official plan.
|
|
I just wanted to invite anybody who holds conservative to moderate political values to check out AmericaC2C.Org. We are a free online group of people from across the U.S., who are working together toward things like Honesty in Journalism, promoting traditional American and Constitutional values, and ensuring a continued conservative/moderate voice in America.
We could use additional like-minded people to work alongside of us. Thank you very much.
http://www.AmericaC2C.Org |
|
|
|
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with going against your own party if that party is ineffective or corrupt ! And that's what Palin did, unseating an ineffective republican governor and telling Ted Stevens to resign. In addition, she has been known as an ethics reformer and nailed another Alaskan Republican, Randy Ruerich, on ethics complaints. That's something you don't see very often - someone who is willing to root out corruption regardless of party.
VP candidates are told to tow the line on a number of issues. It's a fact, if you know how the process works. If you can find any evidence that she supported amnesty for illegals BEFORE her nomination as VP, I would like to see it. Cite it, please. In addition, she did not specifically list all disagreements with the campaign, so your assumption that ANWR and the marriage amendment are the only disagreements is presumptuous.
In addition, the Alaska Permanent Fund is NOT Palin's plan. The profits tax was in existence before she became governor. It is true, however, that she pushed to increase that tax. The tax is part of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
The bit about her relationship with two alleged secessionists is a non-starter. You've been reading too much Newsweek and The New Republic. I think we've moved beyond the secessionist charges, haven't we?
|
|
First, you did not answer my question.
Second, your repeating what the media has said about Palin is not going to change my mind. As I think I said quite clearly, I will decide about Palin based on what I see and hear from the woman herself. You said "Info on Palin is out there. You don't need to wait to know what she believes." Yes, and as I've stated twice now, I'd prefer to hear from her when she is not associated with someone else's campaign and their talking points. I don't know what she was forced to take a position on and unless you were part of the campaign team, neither do you. Why are you so rabidly against her? As I stated earlier, if what you've posted is true, I certainly won't be able to support her. But considering the fact that I don't plan to vote for a new candidate for quite a while, I'm in no rush. Before I returned to college I worked in law (not as a lawyer, no flames please) and there we had a term called "hearsay"-that is what you are posting.
I've also seen, and responded to, your Mark DeMoss piece before but maybe you've forgotten so I will say it again. I don't vote based on religion/race/gender/whatever else. I just don't. You say that you believe it's wrong to chose a candidate based on the fact that they are seen as a regular person. Well I would not choose a candidate solely on that fact, but I also am not against anyone who is not an elitist. As I've stated, I'm all for intelligence as long as it is tempered by a healthy dose of common sense.
What I still fail to understand is why you perceive being intelligent and being down to earth mutually exclusive? Why can't someone be both? |
|
Gov. Palin’s immediate grass roots popularity did create renewal in our party. Like the Governor of Hawaii that spoke before her at the convention, Gov. Palin made you sit up and exclaim, ‘she’s with us.’ One cannot put enough guild on such lilies. One that inspires does it from an intangible wherewithal that cannot be packaged or managed.
Sarah Palin is quintessentially female. She exudes it. Her life choices of mate and family are Norman Rockwell like with the dash of Amelia Earhardt and the empathy of Anne Sullivan. She brings a smile to the face.
Now in the vortex of misplaced anger that follows some women like the dirt swirl accompanying Charles Schultz’s ‘PigPen,’ an accomplished female with beauty and a family is anathema. If one could tap into the mind of a Sally Quinn or the other Palin ridiculing women, we’d find inadequacy issues greater than the North Slope. It’s not political stands; it’s how Sarah Palin makes some women feel about themselves and their nagging choices in life.
Perhaps the woman that uses abortion as a means of contraception feels anger to a woman that births her fifth child knowing he’s a Down baby. Maybe the woman that cannot maintain a relationship easily resents the longevity of the Palin marriage. Some women may detest Gov. Palin for achieving an executive position sans pedigree of a touted University. Other women may resent Gov. Palin fielding a rifle. Or perhaps, for some inadequate women on the left, it’s just that men feel comfortable working with her and taking her lead.
However it examines out, Gov. Palin creates delight over envy and this will continue to be her great strength.
I hope smart GOP members and elected officials such as Gov. Pawlenty and the much missed John Kasich along with Speaker Gingrich will join this Republican in seeing the triumph of Sarah Palin’s personality and skills and boost her in the party and the national consciousness.
|
|
On having "one of us":
I’d like to see evangelicals look for competent, qualified candidates who share our values, whether or not they share our faith or theology. I believe it’s wrong to oppose a candidate because of his faith (Mitt Romney), and equally wrong to support a candidate primarily based on common faith (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin).
Along the campaign trail I met so many people, including pastors and religious leaders, who could tell me only that their choice for president was a “good Christian,” or “one of us.”
This, in my view, is a dangerously inadequate approach to choosing our highest leaders. We don’t choose people for any other positions using this test; why would we apply it to one of the most important positions on the planet?"
I would add that I believe it is wrong to choose candidates based on the fact that they are seen as regular Joe Sixpacks. It's not necessarily a virtue.
We need to choose based on qualifications to do the job, not whether or not we would feel compfortable having a beer with them or not. |
|
McCain chose Sarah because of her record! She loves to walk across the aisle and has said (before and after her run for VP) that she doesn't mind going against her party. She has significant sympathies with the AIG, and is very close to 2 of the radicals who push for secession.
Virginia Patriot has posted the link for her comments on amnesty. I'll post them if you want. A clue is that she doesn't even know how many illegals are in Alaska - a very hot issue for the past 2 years, maybe not in Alaska, but you would think a gov of any state would know. It's not on her radar. She clearly states she thinks there should be a path to citizenship for illegals.
Don't make the mistake of thinking Palin was forced to take McCain's position on everything. She told us where her disagreements were - ANWR and the marriage amendment, and nothing else. She loves to talk about Wall Street greed - a red flag for me. I don't want the gov telling private companies what to pay their employees.
The tax on oil companies in Alaska was her plan, and it gave every person in Alaska 1200 more on top of the 3000 or so they were already getting. Alaska is the most socialist state in the US, and Palin made it more so. She said she liked Obama's stimulus plan even before she was named VP.
Info on Palin is out there. You don't need to wait to know what she believes.
|
|
After 4 years of the intelletual, reserved and cerebel Obama, voters might be looking for someone a little less elite next time. Makes me wonder how the final election results would've been if McCain had gone with populace opinion and not approved the bail out. He could have proved his point he was listening to the people and doing what THEY wanted. And success or fail, he was representing their wants.
|
|
Palin was a cynical gender pick, but that does not mean that the opposition to her is based on gender! Far from it. I would love to see a truly qualified woman move forward.
The reason folks oppose her is her performance in the campaign, her lack of knowledge, troopergate, fashiongate and inability to articulate.
Her gender actually does make people go easier on her, though. She has been protected and is the object of sympathy precisely because she is a woman. |
|
|
Looks like I did confuse you with PC - sorry !! But my points in my original post stand. |
|
|
Exactly right IMO, Carol. Please have a chat with Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved, for starters. They clearly do not get this. |
|
|
I'm confused. I don't know what Sarah's ideas are and my point is that I want to see more of her when she is not tied to someone else's campaign. Perhaps you confused me with PC? |
|
With all due respect, your posting over and over again of what you see as Sarah's positions does not make them Sarah's positions. I want to hear from HER where she stands on these things when she is not being handled by someone else's campaign. If it turns out that she is all those things that you say she is, I certainly will not be able to support her, but that remains to be seen. Furthermore, a whole lot can happen in the world in two to four years so I don't even know where I will stand on all issues at that time. When I voted for GWB, I thought he was great...now, much less so-a lot can happen in four years.
Obviously, we clearly disagree on whether or not the GOP needs to go with an intellectual. You think they do, I think they do not and we've both stated our reasons why in other posts and threads. I see no reason to rehash them in this thread. However, I do have one question-how exactly is wanting a candidate who is not an elitist and possesses not only intelligence, but common sense as well....how is that dem-lite if said candidate espouses conservative values? Regardless of your view on Palin, this statement makes no sense to me.
And just for the record, please note that in every post of mine about her I've simply said let's give her a chance. Whether or not she turns out to be intelligent and/or possess common sense, I'd like to see more of her and make that determination for myself. I'd rather not let the media do it for me. |
|
You are partially wrong in your assessment of Sarah's "ideas." Some of those "ideas" were simply carrying water for the McCain campaign, especially the pro-regulate on Wall Street. If you followed her closely, she mentioned some reservations about the bailout bill. So that is a questionable assumption. The pro-tax on big oil was in place (Alaska Permanent Fund) before she became governor so that doesn't hold water either. As far as being bi-partisan, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't compromise conservative principles. Her pro-amnesty pledge sounded eerily similar to McCain's wording, which tells me that she was told to tow the line on that one.
She is very conservative on social issues. She has paid much attention to tax cuts and spending cuts, which is a very good sign. In addition, she appeals to the Republican base and the middle class, which no other Republican can claim at this point. |
|
A principled conservative; who doesn't care what the elites think and who's a great communicator.
if that's not huckabee, I don't know who it is. |
|
We need a principled conservative who is also a good communicator. We've had Pres. Bush who is silent, not only when attacked, but even when he wants to accomplish something. I think Bush decided to just sit back, letting his actions speak for him, which is the wrong approach. People don't have enough time to figure it out on there own. They need conservative ideology laid out for them and then they will embrace it. Pres. Bush should have been out there articulating conservative principles and defending them. (Guess it would have been a bit harder to do that when he was embracing liberal principles, like spending through the roof and amnesty).
Now we've just experienced John McCain who couldn't communicate ANY conservative principles because he doesn't have any.
I just hope there is a conservative someone with the nerve to step forward for the sake of the country. |
|
I think part of the aversion to Sarah Palin is she is not male. I saw an ugliness that I did not know ran so deeply. Women were some of the worst! Sarah makes us examine how we really think about certain things, and I think some people truly cannot get past gender roles.
Beyond that, I was a Mitt Romney supporter, and I think some of his people are THE WORST advocates for him. They are so fearful of anything that threatens his run in 2012 that they have become some of the most divisive people on the planet. I know many think they can justify this behavior, but I disagree. Hatefulness is ugly, and it does not matter if it comes from the left or the right.
I voted for Mitt in my state's primary, but I doubt he could do anything to ever get my vote again. |
|
Sarah's ideas:
pro-amnesty
pro-regulate Wall Street
pro-bi-partisan, walk across the aisle record
pro-more stimulus plans
pro-spend more on education
pro-tax on big oil to hand out more welfare
I agree Palin is authentic and charismatic. But being so doesn't necessarily qualifiy a person for president. McCain chose Palin because he saw an almost mirroe image of himself. That's why he didn't care to vet her properly.
Listen, I'm not elitist by any stretch, I'm just a regular mom out here in middle America. But I don't think the Joe Sixpack populist route is right. That's just more "I feel your pain" dem-lite.
We need capable, intelligent, knowledgable, and experienced leaders. There are far better choices for 2012 than Palin. I would hate to see the GOP go down an anti-intellectual path. That's suicide. |
|
and very true imho. I think you've nailed why I still feel strongly about giving Palin a fair chance-there is just something about her that strikes me as genuine. I could be wrong but I get this sense that she doesn't care about pleasing anyone in Washington, nor does she particularly care what the media thinks. Contrary to popular belief if you watch the news, I believe she is fairly intelligent, and more importatnly to me, she possesses common sense. I need to hear where she, not McCain, stands on some issues and I need to hear her ideas. I'm not ready to get behind her but I'm likewise not ready to throw her under the bus.
I could not agree more with this analysis. It's not about moderate v. conservative, young v. old, or any of the other various breakdowns I've seen here on TH these past few days. It's all about connecting with regular people and until Republicans learn to do that, they'll never win again unless by default.
|
|
|
|