Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Does anyone here admit to liking Palin?
I'll bite here since I am new and I believe I can hold my own against any forthcoming bile attacks.
Yes, anythig that disagrees with you is 'bile'. But you hate name-calling, my notes say so.
I actually found her a tremendous breath of fresh air amongst a motley lot of dull and duller politicians during the past election cycle, Obama included. It was like a female Teddy Roosevelt suddenly entered the national stage. If she ever gets elected to national office I would expect her to have an impact similar to TR on the American psyche. And do we ever need one!
The descendants of Teddy Roosevelt have every right, as loose as our libel laws are against politicians, to sue you for your despicable attacks on him.
What you call a'breath of fresh air' is about the same thing as electing Charles Manson or Ron Jeremy or Geraldo Rivera - just 'for the novelty'.
It shows you have the judgement of a crow in distinguishing between britht shiny objects that do or do not have any useful qualities.
Palin had nothing to offer but a shock for the nation on how someone so nutty and ill-informed and shamelessly attacking could be considered.
With Bush, Rove said he targetted him for office because of his 'steely blue eyes'. With McCain, it's the constanly hammered, long-disproven marketing of 'intergrity'.
With Palin, it's some shiny noisy quality that attracts the dregs of the right the way that Barbra Streisand attracts gays or Ayn Rand attracks adolescent social Darwinists.
Or in a perhaps mor fittiing set of analogies, the way Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Koresh attracted followers to their 'maverick' leadership.
They're only as dangerous as the fools who follow make them - and unfortunately, for Palin, that's pretty dangerous as we have too many such fools.
We've had a lot of politicians of varying qualities, but Palin is in a league of her own below pretty much any modern national figure, in terms of abiity brougt to the office.
It's one thing to criticize a politician for bad policies, but she has little that can even be debated, her positions are so barren, and filled with little but fluff and attacks.
Yes, she really is the person who constantly harped on Obama 'liking to pal around with terrorists' in a lie, who stirred her crowds to chant 'kill him' with her Obama comments.
You really show a disturbing lack of awareness of the qualities needed in a politician with your support for this monstrous figure.
She is a true believer in those things that are important to her and it comes across in ways that scare the hell out of her opposition.
The same quote would apply the same way to Charles Manson.
She was competitive but not unkind even in the face of some vicious enemies.
If she wasn't unkind - pal with terrorists, constantly attacing the media dishonestly, the smiles to the 'kill him' chanting - I'd hate to see what you think is bad behavior.
I am used to hard attacks in business and in politics but I was truly ashamed of our political process as I saw the dopey characters in the press work as hard as possible to demean her to get their own chosen candidate in office. Dopey characters that could never themselves withstand the character assasination and the personal attacks they tried to inflict against not only Palin but her family, a family that it was obvious she loved very much and that was equally proud to support her in those very tough months and since.
It's not at all clear to me she 'loved her family'; she appears to me more to ignore their needs for her own ambitions, by which I don't mean the fact she runs for office, but rather the way she does things. She appears to be a snake, the way she went after her former brother-in-law, trying to abuse her power and firing the head of the state police when he wouldn't enact her vengeance as she demanded. She has repeatedly used them for excusing her choices, such as trying to use them to justify her irresponsible resignation.
The attacks on her were incredibly restrained - the media put on kid gloves because her imbecilic answers coud easily make them look like they'd asked too hard a question.
So a question like asking her what she liked to read to stay informed - a boilerplate question for politicians - she made headlines with an idiotic answer. And it's their fault.
Those attack continue, don't they? That is the mark of true fear.
You're nuts. The only fear is rational and based on the fact of how many idiots we have who would vote for her - the same sort of fear citizens should have if they see a dangerous figure becoming politically viable, whether it's in 1930's Germany, or 1930's Japan, or Reagan or Bush - but luckily, while she got too far, she does not appear to be a real threat for winning office.
I believe she has been and will continue to be a role model for a lot of kids, too, if their parents are able to shield them from the hate of the left.
Just boggling. The qualities that might fit what you say - the fact she has been a governor - apply to pretty much all kinds of people, who don't have her negatives.
She should be a role model for ignorance? For the idea that the President doesn't have to know whether Africa is a continent or a country, who thinks 'seeing' Russia qualifies her?
She is like one of those pioneer women you read about when you are growing up, but can no longer find in the urban sprawl most of us live in.
And John Wayne really did single-handedly win the Indian wars. No, she's not a thing like them. They didn't run around telling vicious lies for their own gain - and resigning.
While she has been able to shrug off most of the attack dogs that have been sicked on her, I'll take her at her word that she resigned for the good of the State of Alaska and her family (and don't try to twist this comment for something it isn't, I find her action very non-self serving.)
The same way you would find the Sun to be out at night if your hypnotizing mitress told you it was.
Now, I have not commented on her political views and I won't in this forum. These have been recounted ad nauseum and where you stand on the political spectrum determines what your opinion may be, myself included. An election was won and it is pointless to argue that, events will prove out if the country made the right choice.
To my mind, America could use a hell of a lot more Sarah Palins.
For what, we need corrupt, lying, self-serving nutjobs for something? The main credit I'll give her is for her similarity to figures above at being able to hypnotize a group of people.
There's something really sick about her and her followers. In the same way that powerful men hire 'mistresses' who degrade them, there's something destructive about these people who will virtually worship this person who is so lacking in any other quality than hubris, as they fall over themselves to want her out ruining our country.