TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Mar 16, 2011 13:10:52 GMT -5
Dear Big Oil, Please foot the bill for my non-serious Presidential bid. Thanks, Sarah
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 16, 2011 18:27:59 GMT -5
Dear Big Oil and Big Gas, please bail the United States out of its urgent need for energy so we can stop relying on foreign oil for our needs until, or if, we can develop enough renewable energy sources. Otherwise our economy will grind to a halt. This is not a drill (no pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 16, 2011 19:08:08 GMT -5
If we're going to talk about "hidden taxes," we might as well quantify the damage that Palin has done to this country's intellectual capital.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 17, 2011 9:31:10 GMT -5
Do you have the same thing to say about VP Biden re intellectual capital?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,775
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 17, 2011 11:10:04 GMT -5
The VP is no Daniel Webster, granted, but neither was Cheney, Gore, or most of his predecessors.
I agree with George Will's assessment of Palin's visible indifference towards seeking the intellectual mettle to be a serious candidate. Appearing on Facebook, reality TV, and Fox News is not the sufficient vetting for any candidate, and whining that the media are out to get her does not excuse her for her post-Alaska stragegy.
Talk show host Mark Levin falsely compared Palin to the early days of Ronald Reagan. It's a false comparison. YouTube has the famous 30 minute speech he made in the waning days of the 1964 election (the "rendezvous with destiny" speech) and it still carries a punch. In the pre-Teleprompter days, the entire speech was left to a few index cards and he made more salient points about politics in 30 minutes than Sarah Palin has made in three years.
As Will noted, there would have been no Reagan without Goldwater, no Goldwater without the National Review, no National Review without William F. Buckley. Sadly, Palin wouldn't last five minutes in the old Firing Line chair against someone like WFB.
Which, in the end, is the problem. In three years, Sarah Palin hasn't done anything to distinguish herself as a leader of consensus, only as the voice of the faction of mostly white Tea Partiers that shake their fists at the clouds rather than build a future of conservatism in the 21st century for a party of intellectual ideas, not some sort of beer-barrel populism. The challenge for the GOP is finding someone that can articulate leadership that an independent voter could seriously consider. I'd like to see one develop.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Mar 17, 2011 12:04:08 GMT -5
The VP is no Daniel Webster, granted, but neither was Cheney, Gore, or most of his predecessors. I agree with George Will's assessment of Palin's visible indifference towards seeking the intellectual mettle to be a serious candidate. Appearing on Facebook, reality TV, and Fox News is not the sufficient vetting for any candidate, and whining that the media are out to get her does not excuse her for her post-Alaska stragegy. Talk show host Mark Levin falsely compared Palin to the early days of Ronald Reagan. It's a false comparison. YouTube has the famous 30 minute speech he made in the waning days of the 1964 election (the "rendezvous with destiny" speech) and it still carries a punch. In the pre-Teleprompter days, the entire speech was left to a few index cards and he made more salient points about politics in 30 minutes than Sarah Palin has made in three years. As Will noted, there would have been no Reagan without Goldwater, no Goldwater without the National Review, no National Review without William F. Buckley. Sadly, Palin wouldn't last five minutes in the old Firing Line chair against someone like WFB. Which, in the end, is the problem. In three years, Sarah Palin hasn't done anything to distinguish herself as a leader of consensus, only as the voice of the faction of mostly white Tea Partiers that shake their fists at the clouds rather than build a future of conservatism in the 21st century for a party of intellectual ideas, not some sort of beer-barrel populism. The challenge for the GOP is finding someone that can articulate leadership that an independent voter could seriously consider. I'd like to see one develop. Best. DFW. Post. Ever. On. Politics. The Tea Party essentially is the party of Abe Simpson. An incredible irony inheres in the belief of the preponderance of extreme right-wingers that America is in permanent decline which is in diametric opposition to the Reaganesque message that America's best days, as always, are ahead of her, even with the rise of China and India and the disastrous state of America's educational system....
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 17, 2011 13:31:12 GMT -5
It seems some people think you need to be some elite intellectual to be qualified to be president. Despite the very recent admiration some non-conservatives are now showing for Reagan, unlike the scorn they put on him as a candidate and as a president, Reagan was no elite intellectual. Non-conservatives, in his time, made the same argument that he was not smart enough to be president. But Reagan had a set of core values he believed in, was able to articulate them in a manner that appealed to Americans, and administered his office generally consistent with those core principles. And the elite excoriated him for that, mocking him, for instance, in pushing the Strategic Defense Initiative (which they ridiculed by naming it Star Wars), for telling the Soviet premier to tear down the Berlin Wall, for ramping up defense, for calling for tax cuts, for saying that government was the problem, etc.
Harry Truman was no intellectual but he, too, had some core values that guided him, like civil rights, the Marshall Plan, the authority of civilians over the military, his absolute opposition to communism throughout the world as in Korea, etc. He was denigrated and driven from office because he stuck to his principles.
Eisenhower was no intellectual and was the subject of ridicule because of his seeming detachment from the intricacies of the office.
On the contrary, Nixon was one of the smartest presidents I have experienced. Carter was an intellectual.
My point is that it is not necessary for a president to be an intellectual. Some who were not were still good presidents while some who were, were not good presidents.
I'm not sure about Sarah Palin. To date she has not exposed anything resembling intellectualism. However, she has some principles she stands for like small government, pro-life, strong national defense, etc. She is also very articulate and charismatic. Her biggest problems are not fitting the elite mode preferred by the press, being very blunt in saying what she believes (you know where she stands), and being pretty. The last is a turnoff for many people who refuse to believe a pretty woman should be president.
As to whether Palin could survive a thorough grilling by the press, probably not because they would go after her and set traps, unlke the way they treated Obama - and still treat him. Were she to have an honest grilling, addressing the main issues of the day and not such things as who's the president of Makeupistan, I think you would be surprised how well she would do. But, if you introduce someone peering over the top of their glasses with facial expressions saying "you're stupid" or another introducing extraneous questions like what magazines do you read - then, she would be made to look bad.
Sarah Palin will probably never run for high office again. Today she is still characterized by her apparent lack of knowledge during the last presidential election and the incessant pounding she has taken in the press since then. People talk about her playing the victim card but she has been the subject of ridicule for so long, I think it's appropriate.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 17, 2011 13:36:27 GMT -5
Well deserved ridicule, I might add.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 17, 2011 13:54:30 GMT -5
It seems some people think you need to be some elite intellectual to be qualified to be president. Despite the very recent admiration some non-conservatives are now showing for Reagan, unlike the scorn they put on him as a candidate and as a president, Reagan was no elite intellectual. Non-conservatives, in his time, made the same argument that he was not smart enough to be president. But Reagan had a set of core values he believed in, was able to articulate them in a manner that appealed to Americans, and administered his office generally consistent with those core principles. And the elite excoriated him for that, mocking him, for instance, in pushing the Strategic Defense Initiative (which they ridiculed by naming it Star Wars), for telling the Soviet premier to tear down the Berlin Wall, for ramping up defense, for calling for tax cuts, for saying that government was the problem, etc. Harry Truman was no intellectual but he, too, had some core values that guided him, like civil rights, the Marshall Plan, the authority of civilians over the military, his absolute opposition to communism throughout the world as in Korea, etc. He was denigrated and driven from office because he stuck to his principles. Eisenhower was no intellectual and was the subject of ridicule because of his seeming detachment from the intricacies of the office. On the contrary, Nixon was one of the smartest presidents I have experienced. Carter was an intellectual. My point is that it is not necessary for a president to be an intellectual. Some who were not were still good presidents while some who were, were not good presidents. I'm not sure about Sarah Palin. To date she has not exposed anything resembling intellectualism. However, she has some principles she stands for like small government, pro-life, strong national defense, etc. She is also very articulate and charismatic. Her biggest problems are not fitting the elite mode preferred by the press, being very blunt in saying what she believes (you know where she stands), and being pretty. The last is a turnoff for many people who refuse to believe a pretty woman should be president. As to whether Palin could survive a thorough grilling by the press, probably not because they would go after her and set traps, unlke the way they treated Obama - and still treat him. Were she to have an honest grilling, addressing the main issues of the day and not such things as who's the president of Makeupistan, I think you would be surprised how well she would do. But, if you introduce someone peering over the top of their glasses with facial expressions saying "you're stupid" or another introducing extraneous questions like what magazines do you read - then, she would be made to look bad. Sarah Palin will probably never run for high office again. Today she is still characterized by her apparent lack of knowledge during the last presidential election and the incessant pounding she has taken in the press since then. People talk about her playing the victim card but she has been the subject of ridicule for so long, I think it's appropriate. After doing this interview during the Arizona immigration debate, I'm pretty sure she doesn't want to do much more "addressing the main issues of the day". It's embarrassing how poorly she handles being interviewed by someone on her own side of the debate. I personally dislike O'Reilly's style, but I like that he's unwilling to accept "do whatever it takes" as an answer. It's not like she didn't know what the topic of the interview was going to be beforehand, so how is she so horrifically unprepared on the subject?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 17, 2011 14:31:02 GMT -5
Her biggest problems are not fitting the elite mode preferred by the press, being very blunt in saying what she believes (you know where she stands), and being pretty. The last is a turnoff for many people who refuse to believe a pretty woman should be president. I hope it's cozy under your rock.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Mar 17, 2011 14:54:12 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 17, 2011 18:31:44 GMT -5
Her biggest problems are not fitting the elite mode preferred by the press, being very blunt in saying what she believes (you know where she stands), and being pretty. The last is a turnoff for many people who refuse to believe a pretty woman should be president. I hope it's cozy under your rock. And I hope you have a nice day too, strummer.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 17, 2011 19:18:07 GMT -5
Unless Sarah Palin is playing for VCU, I have no interest in talking about her this weekend.
Or Joe Biden. (except that I hate Syracuse).
Or Haley Barbour. Or Mitch Daniels. Etc. Etc.
Or Barack Obama (except that his picks suck moose).
Maybe next week. (But I see she still has the ability to get people all wee-wee'd up.)
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 18, 2011 12:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 9, 2011 23:41:59 GMT -5
Palin's e-mails as governor (including those sent from private accounts in a possible attempt to circumvent FOIAs) to be released tomorrow. www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10palin.html?_r=1&hpI think Ed's going to love the media response: "MSNBC.com, ProPublica and Mother Jones magazine are working with a research company to create an online database of the documents." "The New York Times and other news organizations intend to assemble their own searchable online databases of the documents, and some, including The Times, were asking readers Thursday to help reporters sift through the voluminous correspondence in the coming days."
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jun 10, 2011 1:14:44 GMT -5
You lost me at "Chalabi." That scumbag has stolen millions from US taxpayers and gotten a lot of good American soldiers killed. Not just by promoting the Iraq invasion and deliberately feeding the Bush Administration with false intel, but by promptly turning on the US as soon as he got back to Iraq and stirring up anti-American sentiment, fanning the flames of the insurgency when it was at its worst. That shameless bottom-feeding opportunist got more Americans killed than Saddam did.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 10, 2011 8:16:10 GMT -5
Palin's e-mails as governor (including those sent from private accounts in a possible attempt to circumvent FOIAs) to be released tomorrow. www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10palin.html?_r=1&hpI think Ed's going to love the media response: "MSNBC.com, ProPublica and Mother Jones magazine are working with a research company to create an online database of the documents." "The New York Times and other news organizations intend to assemble their own searchable online databases of the documents, and some, including The Times, were asking readers Thursday to help reporters sift through the voluminous correspondence in the coming days." You think that one day they may do the same to Obama?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jun 10, 2011 8:25:09 GMT -5
Palin's e-mails as governor (including those sent from private accounts in a possible attempt to circumvent FOIAs) to be released tomorrow. www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10palin.html?_r=1&hpI think Ed's going to love the media response: "MSNBC.com, ProPublica and Mother Jones magazine are working with a research company to create an online database of the documents." "The New York Times and other news organizations intend to assemble their own searchable online databases of the documents, and some, including The Times, were asking readers Thursday to help reporters sift through the voluminous correspondence in the coming days." You think that one day they may do the same to Obama? Obama is actually an important political figure. I would consider it more justified if they published his correspondence than those of an irrelevant nobody like Palin. I will admit, though, I hope her emails contain a few more of her takes on historical events. Maybe she will confirm my suspicion that in 1861, Abraham Lincoln rode a bicycle to Richmond while blowing into a vuvuzela to warn the Confederates that they'll never take our arms.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 10, 2011 8:30:14 GMT -5
Yup. I'll never forget when Sarah Palin told us how many states we had or about how important FDR's televised fireside chats were to the country.
Oh, wait......
;D
|
|
ScreamingHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Ted Valentine: Getting it wrong since 1979.
Posts: 451
|
Post by ScreamingHoya on Jun 10, 2011 15:31:24 GMT -5
Yup. I'll never forget when Sarah Palin told us how many states we had or about how important FDR's televised fireside chats were to the country. Oh, wait...... ;D Yes, because clearly misspeaking is the same thing as making up a false historical event, having your supporters try to edit the wikipedia page for it, and then insisting days later that you were correct all along.
|
|