Loading
reagan Republican
Marble Falls, Texas US
5 news,
1 videos,
22 blog posts,
10 comments,
6 forum posts
Recently Submitted News
0 commentsThe PayTeck Smart Box
USA Today - Payments are due every two weeks at Patriot. Sales staff program the first due date into the...
Obama Encounters a REAL Interview- and Doesn't Like It
Reaganite - For the first time in memory, Barack Obama was but back on his heels by a persistent...
Covering the Backsides of Obamacare-pushers?:CBO
Michelle Malkin - The poor number-crunchers have been working overtime as Speaker Pelosi and the Dems have re-jiggered and re-jiggered...
What Hath Queen Nancy Wrought??
Spectator - In a surprising moment of candor, Nancy of the House of Pelosi said she wishes to avoid...
Huffington Post's Ventura Censorship Backfires
www.prisonplanet.com - Did you know that Adam Lambert has a bulge in his crotch?
Obama Says āLouisiana Purchaseā Will Help With the Earthquak
www.breitbart.tv - Without a teleprompter Obama shows his stupidity, no wonder he rarely speaks without one.
Nuns want healthcare
CNN - ""We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming 'yes' vote when the Senate health care bill...
- 25 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
Patriot Watch (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
sara palin is one of the weakest politicians in history. she doesnt scare anyone regardless of polit … Show full comment
sara palin is one of the weakest politicians in history. she doesnt scare anyone regardless of polit … Show full comment
Difference between you an I is I will call out anyone in government regardless of party. Your strickly a jello eater (so I won't offend) (inner racial slur)
Obama is a train wreck. his policies have been proven to be failures in the past. he is not smart enough or has a agenda for which you do not know.
People who support Obama are socialist or stupid. Period. That debate is over already. You can't debate fact.
Oh the difference between the two is Obama can do no wrong and he is your leader. You look up to him for no other reason than your star struck. Palin is government figure who serves me. That's the difference.
i would love to tell her to her face how wrong she really is Wrong for what? She has one of the highest approval ratings in the nation.
What do you disagree with? The murder of children?
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
yes she is such a threat despite the fact that she lost the election and resigned from office in the … Show full comment
yes she is such a threat despite the fact that she lost the election and resigned from office in the … Show full comment
In Polls she is rising while your guy is droping, we will see in about 3 or 4 months she will pass obama as he keeps droping.
D-IIIII (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
sara palin is one of the weakest politicians in history. she doesnt scare anyone regardless of polit … Show full comment
sara palin is one of the weakest politicians in history. she doesnt scare anyone regardless of polit … Show full comment
First of all, I reread the post, and the last line should've read liberal REPUBLICANS who've hijacked the party be damned. Other than that mistake that you've pointed out and and an extra letter in the word exception, the post is valid. You are just young and indoctrinated and have a lack of understanding. And before you criticze others for mispelling a word or any other minor mistake, you should look at your own postings.
Now run along and see if you can get help with finding the Caps button and learning some punctuation.
KristiAnn (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
Personally she may not scare you. The ones she scares are demo pollsters, democratic media, and the … Show full comment
Personally she may not scare you. The ones she scares are demo pollsters, democratic media, and the … Show full comment
yes she is such a threat despite the fact that she lost the election and resigned from office in the state of alaska. give me a break. the only ppl she scares are weak people.i would love to tell her to her face how wrong she really is then watch her walk away pissed off and on the verge of tears...that would make my day.
KristiAnn (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to Patriot Watch
lack of experience so according to you OBAMA is not qualified. I agree with you for once. … Show full comment
lack of experience so according to you OBAMA is not qualified. I agree with you for once. … Show full comment
lol. just like when you apologized for being racist, im sure youll apologize for writing this ignorant comment. please dont insult me by saying we agree on anything. fortunately(for me)im completely diffrent from you. use my own tag lines??? whats the diffrence between you calling obama our messah then calling palin yours? when you come up with an answer to that then ill be waiting. until then do some research and dont waste my time with nonsense. by the way obama and jesus are not anything alike. as a christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for mixing politics with religion
KristiAnn (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to D-IIIII
Actually, lack of experience sums up Obama. McCain is not moderate. He is a liberal Republican. All … Show full comment
Actually, lack of experience sums up Obama. McCain is not moderate. He is a liberal Republican. All … Show full comment
sara palin is one of the weakest politicians in history. she doesnt scare anyone regardless of political affiliation. your telling me that because i feel shes a poor candidate then im automatically scared of her. that makes no sense lol. first you need to look over the comment you wrote and see the contradictory youve made(along with a quick spell check) and see how bogus you sound.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but le … Show full comment
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but le … Show full comment
Personally she may not scare you. The ones she scares are demo pollsters, democratic media, and the democratic hierarchy. Otherwise the ferocity of their attacks, personal and family, would not be happening. They know she is a danger to them.
Patriot Watch (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but le … Show full comment
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but le … Show full comment
lack of experience so according to you OBAMA is not qualified. I agree with you for once.
McCain is center who leans to the left. moderate but leans to the right? Palin our messiah? Use your own tag lines. It sounds funny one you say things backwards.
Have they replaced Jesus with an Obama statue at your church?
D-IIIII (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but le … Show full comment
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but le … Show full comment
Actually, lack of experience sums up Obama. McCain is not moderate. He is a liberal Republican. All neo-cons are. They are Big Government, war mongering, big business and screw the little guy. That is why McCain lost.
Palin is the first person on the right to hit the national stage, with the exceeption of Ron Paul, who is not a neocon in a long time. That is why the left attacks her. She pulls the party up towards libertarianism and not down towards the statism of the liberals and the neocons, Marxists and communists. That is the reason the left is scared of her. She invigorates conservatives; liberal democrats who've hijacked the party be damned.
KristiAnn (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to ChipBuffalo
Keep thinking that, she scares the crap out of you libs, and the rhino's because she is a no BS kind … Show full comment
Keep thinking that, she scares the crap out of you libs, and the rhino's because she is a no BS kind … Show full comment
she scares me...hmm, apparently you know something i dont. mccain is actually fairly moderate but leans toward the right a bit more. compromise isnt what makes a person weak. lack of experience is. which is what your messiah(palin) had. lol nice try
ChipBuffalo (Constitutionalist) - 9 months ago
Reply to KristiAnn
she terrifies the left????? shes nothing more than a bitchier version hilary clinton. besides her un … Show full comment
she terrifies the left????? shes nothing more than a bitchier version hilary clinton. besides her un … Show full comment
Keep thinking that, she scares the crap out of you libs, and the rhino's because she is a no BS kind of politician. Kind of like your messiah was pretending to be, but turned out to be total crap.
She is not why mccain lost, she helped him get as close as he did. Mccain is a very weak republican, that is why he lost. He could not carry the base.
KristiAnn (Democratic) - 9 months ago
she terrifies the left????? shes nothing more than a bitchier version hilary clinton. besides her unusual amount of testosterone(ahem..facial hair) nothing about her intimidates me. shes one of the reasons mccain lost, had he picked a neutral and fairly likable canidate, he may have won.
Jeremy86 (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to reagan
Why do you suppose that the media coverage of Palin, in the very beginning, was so intensive - to th … Show full comment
Why do you suppose that the media coverage of Palin, in the very beginning, was so intensive - to th … Show full comment
The question as to why the media would want to descend on Wasilla and Alaska is pretty simple: they were trying to figure out who the hell she was. You have to call back to the day she was announced; no one knew who she was then. In an interview that day, a notable woman within the Republican Party (I want to say it was Olympia Snow) was asked what she thought and she had no answer - she didn't really know who Palin was and didn't feel comfortable commenting.
The media coverage was more positive when it was more superficial by nature. She was a hockey mom with a few cute kids and a charming demeanor. What's not to like? Well, apparently, a lot, and the McCain campaign hadn't properly vetted or her prepared for the flood of information that would come out. I don't believe that the media was necessarily looking for trouble. I DO think that they were trying to find out everything they could, both positive and negative, and when some pretty sizable scandals came to light (the baby, "Troopergate," etc) they rushed to seize on them first because scandal with any major politician or public figure is always a major get. These, after all, are the same people that crushed Joe Biden's presidential bid two decades before with a scandal - they gravitate towards what gets them ratings and readers, not what favors their favorite political candidate.
An important political tactic - one Palin, for obvious reasons, wasn't able to utilize - is to get skeletons in the closet out of the way first in a book before actually beginning a campaign. Obama, for instance, learned from Clinton's own mistakes in campaigning and acknowledged having smoked pot as a youngster before it could be "outed" and become a bigger issue on the campaign trail later on. No news outlet would claim "breaking news" or a major "exclusive get" for information that was already available for a while.
I bring this up because of what you said about the media not "biting" on a number of "issues" like Ayers, Wright, etc. They did. One of the major differences however was timing. Wright was an obsession for days on the cable news networks, but it occurred reasonably early in the primaries and Obama was not only successful in distancing himself from Wright and explaining it away, but did so in his noted "race" speech that actually ended up giving him a boost politically. Ayers, similarly, was a media catch for a little while, but also disappeared once it was explained and the actual "connection" turned out to be minimal (Ayers himself later said he barely knew the guy); by the time Fox and McCain tried to dredge it up again months later, the public had already made up its mind about the issue and didn't care. Michelle's speech, too, was huge news, but occurred early enough in the primary campaign that it was simply no longer "news" by the time the general election rolled around. Other ones, like the flag-pin fiasco, were also fixed early by the campaign that had the benefit of time to do so. Mark my words, any media outlet would have covered a fresh, new Obama scandal last fall had one been brought to light; the problem (for McCain) was that there weren't any that weren't well-worn territory, and no media outlet was going to give up ratings to other stations covering breaking news just to talk about William Ayers again.
The rest of your post is kind of off topic and hard to tackle but I'll try to address it generally. I think you have an image of this country's past - even relatively recent past - that is definitely covered by seriously rose-colored glasses. The reality is that slick politicians are nothing new. Bill Clinton was a slick politician. Reagan was a slick politician (do you not think these people had catchy dumb slogans too?). FDR was a slick politician. Many of our founding fathers and great presidents like Lincoln were slick politicians. It may be a huge problem, but it's NOT new. Being a good politician is a pre-requisite for being in office and always has been, period. Does that mean that anyone who is a slick politician is automatically a bad person, or a bad leader? No, of course not. But even part of being a good leader is being persuasive in bringing people to your side - yes, being "slick." By that token, Obama is certainly one of the slickest and most persuasive politicians we have seen in some time. So was Ronald Reagan.
To the rest of it, I'll again say that I think you have seriously rose-colored glasses for one part of the country and some pretty broad and false stereotypes in your head of the other. As it is, most of the people you cite as offensive are essentially media figures; they're selling product to an audience. Are they often hateful and even racist? Yes, of course, but so are many of their equivalents like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. And that, the media, is really where the supposed "culture war" tends to reside; whilst perhaps existing somewhat in real life, it's nonetheless in its more exaggerated form a media invention, one designed to sell you on watching their product, whether you're on the left or right. Culture war breeds conflict, and that breeds ratings. It's not a conspiracy; they just want you to watch their programming or read their columns like anyone else. If that means Ann Coulter spouting hateful caricatures of liberals and Michael Moore spouting hateful caricatures of conservatives, then so be it.
But none of this is new. At best it's cyclical. At some point, yes, the Republicans will be back in power again. So will the Democrats after that, and on and on it goes. That's politics for you.
padokc (Republican) - 9 months ago
This is nothing more than Eastern media snobbery .... who want to destroy Palin because she didn t go to Harvard or Yale so she is considered therefore = stupid. They laid ther "got ya" traps .... it is very clear.
We would not be in the problem economically today .... if those Harvard and Yale ivy league educated egg heads where not in charge. They got us in this economic mess and now more of them THINK they know how to get us out. The idea that only problem solvers and leaders are produced in the ivy league schools is really nonsense.
We don t need people who know how to pass tests in college and make good grades. We need people who are problem solvers and leaders and you can t learn that sitting in a class room.
Palin has more practical experience and effectiveness than Obama. What did he ever actually do any how...I can t find one accomplishment other than giving pretty speeches that are now beginning to sound very shallow and empty....lying...well I don t think he knows how to tell the truth...I've lost count on the lies and flip-flops.
Oh I take that back...in the short time Obama has been in office he has managed to pretty much destroy the very principles on which the country was established. America is truly becoming an Obamanation.
reagan (Republican) - 9 months ago
Reply to Jeremy86
First off, Fox is mainstream. They are owned by a major corporation, as and you said yourself they … Show full comment
First off, Fox is mainstream. They are owned by a major corporation, as and you said yourself they … Show full comment
Why do you suppose that the media coverage of Palin, in the very beginning, was so intensive - to the degree that they actually outnumbered actual residents of Wasilla - when, by comparison, as we learned (primarily from Fox News) about the many questionable characters in Obama's life, the media didn't bite on Rezko, didn't bite on Ayers, didn't bite on Wright (again, with the exception of Fox), didn't bite on Michelle's comment that this was the first time in her life that she was proud of her country, didn't bite on so many detrimental to Obama's campaign "scandals" - but sent hordes and hordes to Wasilla trying to dig up something, anything negative on Palin? There is no question, even on the left, that the media is blatantly and unapologetically in their camp - and comedians such as Letterman seize on any opportunity - ANY trivial opportunity, such as Palin attending a Yankees game for God's sake, to humiliate the woman and her family - you're obviously a very bright kid, but you must admit, there is a HUGE double standard practiced in this country by the left and their media lapdogs. It isn't always about business - at least not primarily - Fox has become mainstream because the "mainstream" media isn't mainstream anymore - it's blatantly liberally biased, and people have caught on to that - and want to watch coverage that isn't slobbering over Obama all the time - Chris Matthews saying that he got "tingles" up his leg when watching Obama speak - give me a break!!!
As you grow older, and experience more of life - you will most likely, like most people, turn to the right - as life teaches lessons that reinforce principles more compatible to right wing thinking - as Churchill once said, "If you are young and conservative, you don't have a heart - if you are old and liberal, you don't have a brain."
I did vote for Clinton in the 90s - I also voted for Reagan in the 80s - so I don't consider myself to be an ideologue by any means - but I know hypocrisy when I see it, I know bias when I see it, and I have come to understand that the democrat agenda is fairly simple - keep your constituents beholding to you, and you will always have their votes.
This country isn't what it used to be - it's all about pop culture, Michael Jackson, entertainment, instant gratification - it isn't about weighing thoughtfully and maturely the options - Obama was elected because people were tired of Bush, McCain did not run any campaign at all - it was a dismal effort on his part, and many, many people bought into catchy political slogans - yes we can, hope and change - no one looked closely at Obama, his past, his many, many questionable relationships with far left wing ideologues, even terrorists (Ayers) - you cannot come out of a cesspool of politics (Chicago) and be clean. It is virtually impossible.
Palin admittedly gave lots of ammunition to her enemies - no doubt about it - but there is also no question that when she learns how to NOT give that ammunition, she matures, polishes up her act, she will be a force to be reckoned with.
Because people are tired of slick politicians. Give me a real person anytime over a slick politician - people are so tired of the evasive answers, the trying to please everyone all the time, the wait and see before I commit politician - these are the "qualities" that Obama has - and it's wearing very thin now. People want a leader - a real person, a real leader - a Reagan, a Churchill, an FDR - we are all tired of the crap. Take a position, have a vision not based on your polling numbers, show some courage to be real, etc. And in Palin, people sense that - they see it - that's why she touched so many people in a way they haven't had since Reagan.
I maintain that the left is frightened of her - so they mock her - and they continue to mock her - as I said, she is old news now to conservatives - but the left finds something almost daily - even as trivial as attending a baseball game, as an excuse to mock her. It's very evident that to them, Palin is a problem.
On a bigger scale than what we are discussing here, I think it is rooted in the cultural struggle that is going on - Secular Progressiveness v. Conservative Christianity and Middle America - it is my perception and opinion that the SPs consider middle America as stupid - hence their elitist, smug attitudes - a case in point, the NY Times - the home of elitist arrogant liberal thought. It is fascinating to me the hypocrisy practiced - the double standards.
And, somewhat off the point, Janeane Garofalo - and her ilk - getting on national TV and telling us that all those who attended Tea Parties were just "racists, straight up" upset because Obama is black....you see, these are the things that cause many of us to despise the left - the woman did not go to a Tea Party, yet she is calling us all racists. I don't care what the melanin content of Obama's skin is - but Janeane apparently does - once again, hypocrisy - I have found that the true racists in this country are almost always liberal - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Combs, Garafolo, etc - I can tell you that my conservative friends and family do not care at all about the color of Obama's skin - so to be told by the left that we are just dumb racists - it's really quite amazing and appalling.
I can without a doubt tell you this - Obama will not be re-elected if he continues his current course and M.O. - Reagan won in a landslide over Carter in 1980 - and today, we have much the same circumstances that allowed Reagan's landslide win in 1980 - and the sad thing is, if Obama fails, it will be another hundred years before any black man or woman, no matter how qualified or gifted, is elected to the Presidency. His failure will not help the civil rights movement and in fact will set it back significantly. I don't care to see that happen.
It's just such a shame to me that the first black president was elected largely because he had catchy campaign slogans, and for many people, it was a vote AGAINST McCain, not FOR Obama.
In any event, we will see what happens - but my guess is that Obama will continue to decline in popularity, the economy will continue to flounder, and the stage will be set for a huge Republican gain in both houses in 2010.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 9 months ago
Reply to ReaganiteGOPer
I agree with both of you- If Sarah Palin is SO silly and irrelevant, why the obsession? Clearly t … Show full comment
I agree with both of you- If Sarah Palin is SO silly and irrelevant, why the obsession? Clearly t … Show full comment
I made the comment before reading the post, I seem to be of like mind to Reagan, didn't mean to plagarize, you make some good points too. The libs never admit they are afraid of her, have you noticed?
Jeremy86 (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to reagan
First off, I believe you have it backwards - the way that "the broader public perceives her&quo … Show full comment
First off, I believe you have it backwards - the way that "the broader public perceives her&quo … Show full comment
First off, Fox is mainstream. They are owned by a major corporation, as and you said yourself they get huge ratings - that is the definition of mainstream. The reason they skew right is that it is their marketing strategy. MSNBC, at one time, was also attempting to skew rightward and found they couldn't lock in that audience in the same way, hence their leftward shift since then; they were always modeled after Fox in their design. While I don't really agree with this perception myself, the perception among some in the mid-90s when Fox first started was that the rest of the media (particularly CNN, the only other cable news channel at that time) was skewed to the left and a lot of people refused to watch it, and thus they were an untapped viewership. The majority of people - including liberals, independents, people in the middle, etc. - were and still watching other sources, but Fox gets huge ratings simply because they found the biggest "niche" audience that wasn't watching anyone else, while the others having a larger overall audience but have to share that audience was more sources. Sorry, a little cable news history there.
Back to Palin: yes she is a political figure, but our news media - which I'm no huge fan of by the way - likes to turn things into easy "scandals" and any public figure into celebrities of sorts; hence, for instance, Gov. Sanford's sex scandal is big news while his dereliction of duty isn't. It's easier to cover and gets good ratings. It's not a conspiracy, they have no investment in it either way, and are just businesses; even the ones with overt slants (e.g. MSNBC and FOX) are really only presenting that slant as an appeal to a particular audience they hope to gain. They're essentially selling a product to the audience that will buy it, and the news they respond to is what they think will get them ratings. Hence, if Palin's daughter is pregnant, that's big news. If John Edwards sleeps with (and has a baby with!) his former campaign worker, that's big news. They're responding to what they think will get ratings, and for better or worse, Palin gets ratings.
That's not proof that anyone is "afraid" of Palin. Comedians like David Letterman are not "afraid" of her and neither are tabloids. They're reacting to the way people already perceive Palin and selling that back to them. A comedian making a joke is just reacting to what's already out there, not trying to affect any outcomes.
I would also call back to the fact that at the beginning much of Palin's public perception and media coverage were actually quite positive. At that time, I think that yes, the Democrats were genuinely concerned, because she seemed to have given a boost to McCain, and she struck many as a likable and strong figure. The problem is that so much came out about her, and, the more the public saw of her, the less they liked her: the disconnect of her abstinence message with that of her daughter's life (as well as using her daughter in such an overt political context), her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs, multiple disastrous interviews, her dicey comments at rallies. Like Fox News (or MSNBC for that matter) she had a hardcore "base" that loved her but the vast majority was really going elsewhere.
reagan (Republican) - 9 months ago
Reply to Jeremy86
I've already said why. The Democrats are: A. Using her strategically because they know how the b … Show full comment
I've already said why. The Democrats are: A. Using her strategically because they know how the b … Show full comment
First off, I believe you have it backwards - the way that "the broader public perceives her" is based entirely upon the media attacks on her - THEY have painted her as trailer trash, nutty, right wing imbecile - and the broader public, read people who believe everything the media tells them, buy into the liberals' assessment of her. The liberally biased media has created the perception - that is their intent, because they do not want the woman gaining any traction with the broader public.
Comparing Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin is specious and like comparing apples and oranges - Sarah Palin is a political figure - it is once again the elitist liberal media that paints her as a "celebrity" figure not to be taken seriously politically. And there is a reason for that - and the reason is, although I will concede that she definitely needs to "grow" and refine herself, she possess the raw talent, the charisma, the uniqueness to be a very serious threat to liberals. She appeals to middle America - and that is exactly what the media must destroy - her appeal. The woman, with all of her flaws, is definitely
a threat to be dealt with - give your side credit for recognizing that fact.
The fact is, she has touched a nerve among conservatives in a way not done so since Reagan. She just needs polish, and once she achieves that, which she will, her appeal will outweigh the liberal assaults on her - the "broader public" will no longer see her as the buffoon the media wants them to see her as. Sarah Palin is old news to most people - to the broader public - but she isn't old news to liberals, who continue to launch despicable attacks on her. And pretty soon, those assaults will cause a backlash among the broader public - who by and large are already sick and tired of liberally biased,vicious and personal media attacks on anyone with whom they disagree. There is a reason why Fox News has the huge ratings that it has and dwarfs the ratings of the mainstream media, and outright nut job media suck as PMSNBC, NBC, etc. People can sense when there is an agenda - and there is no question that the liberal agenda includes neutralizing Palin before she gains too much strength.
Jeremy86 (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to reagan
The democrats and their allies, the media, are CONSTANTLY obsessed with Palin - why is that? Almost … Show full comment
The democrats and their allies, the media, are CONSTANTLY obsessed with Palin - why is that? Almost … Show full comment
I've already said why. The Democrats are:
A. Using her strategically because they know how the broader public perceives her.
B. Yes, in fact, attacking her for sport.
Okay, B isn't literal. But it's entertainment. It's the same reason I like watching Glenn Beck videos on Youtube. To a lot of people, her absurdity is funny. Her scandalous family life and contentious (and well documented) relationship with the McCain strategists are shocking in the same way as celebrity gossip. The media plays into that because they know it will get them ratings and readers; they are businesses after all. Do you think they cared about "destroying" Michael Jackson during his trials either? No, they had no investment whatsoever, but the whiff of celebrity scandal is always a powerful moneymaker for them. Same principle here.
reagan (Republican) - 9 months ago
Reply to Jeremy86
She simply isn't. She was maybe the biggest singular reason within the campaign that McCain lost, a … Show full comment
She simply isn't. She was maybe the biggest singular reason within the campaign that McCain lost, a … Show full comment
The democrats and their allies, the media, are CONSTANTLY obsessed with Palin - why is that? Almost every other day, a new liberal, vicious, personal attack is launched - either by liberal elitist "comedians" (David Letterman), the media, some bimbo lib nut somewhere - if Palin is NOT a threat to these people and the democrats, why do they waste their time attacking her? Is it just for sport? Obviously, the dems and especially liberal dems are terrified of her potential to destroy them - so they are trying to destroy her first with their hateful, despicable, usual liberal tripe. The fact that she has so many avid fans, and the fact that she obviously touched a nerve among the people, has the dems terrified that if she should mature and refine - she will be a HUGE threat to them in 2012. At least give them credit for recognizing her potential to spark a true second Reagan Revolution.
Jeremy86 (Democratic) - 9 months ago
Reply to ReaganiteGOPer
LOL, you WISH she wasn't a viable candidate Watch and learn, libstain Show full comment
LOL, you WISH she wasn't a viable candidate Watch and learn, libstain Show full comment
She simply isn't. She was maybe the biggest singular reason within the campaign that McCain lost, and many members of the party aren't real happy with her. She appeals to the base but not to moderates. Strategically, she's a disaster on a national stage.
Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee (debateably), Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich. These are people the Democrats will be watching. Not Sarah Palin.
ReaganiteGOPer (Republican) - 9 months ago
Reply to Jeremy86
I don't think Palin really "terrifies" anyone...that is, not anymore, now that she's no lo … Show full comment
I don't think Palin really "terrifies" anyone...that is, not anymore, now that she's no lo … Show full comment
LOL, you WISH she wasn't a viable candidate
Watch and learn, libstain
Jeremy86 (Democratic) - 9 months ago
I don't think Palin really "terrifies" anyone...that is, not anymore, now that she's no longer a viable candidate for a national office.
The media is definitely obsessed with her, of course. For better or worse, she's a divisive figure with a strange personal life and an even stranger public persona at times: in other words, ratings gold. In a media that thrives on bull**** like sex scandals and celebrity drama, is it any surprise that a notable politician with a pregnant (and now mother) daughter and a contentious relationship with a lot of other public figures would make the news a lot? It's easy to cover and to dramatize on the cable news networks, which thrive on conflict.
That's not to say that parts of the left aren't purposely reacting to her in some ways, but I think that reaction is being misinterpreted. It's like when the Democratic Party went out of their way to make Rush Limbaugh into the face of the opposition; they knew the majority of the public sees Rush as ridiculous, so they knew it would be advantageous to them if they could associate the Republicans with Rush in the public's eye. The association minimizes their credibility, whether fairly or unfairly. In Palin's case, it's the same principle; they're using her because they're aware of how the general public views her, and they want to create that association. It's political strategy.
And to those not using it as political strategy, well, the main obsession is just that she's funny to them. I don't think she terrifies them any more than Joe Biden terrifies the right. Like Biden her public behavior is (unintentionally) hilarious and "proof" to some on the left of the right's craziness, just as Biden and others are often "proof" of the left's craziness to some on the right. Youtube videos of her are fun to watch, simple as that.
ReaganiteGOPer (Republican) - 9 months ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
The libs are constantly attacking her because she terrifies them. She is admired by so many and is m … Show full comment
The libs are constantly attacking her because she terrifies them. She is admired by so many and is m … Show full comment
I agree with both of you-
If Sarah Palin is SO silly and irrelevant, why the obsession? Clearly the Left noted her appeal, and are out to eliminate the threat- it’s not like it’s not obvious.
And she’s been highly successful in life while ignoring the left-wing feminist model… this helps to explain the extra dose of venom in the attacks.
And they surely have reason to fear her- Palin is the most popular governor in the country… are all those people idiots?
Alaska was a pretty corrupt system until she stepped in. Her reforms took on entrenched politicians (inc. Republicans), a mafioso-style union boss, and Big Oil.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if Obama had been principled and brave enough to confront the corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine?
Or shady political operators like Tony Rezko?
Racist preachers?
Instead of doing business with every last one of them?
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 9 months ago
The libs are constantly attacking her because she terrifies them. She is admired by so many and is making inroads into democratic voters. They are afraid of a conservative woman who is smart, attractive, and can be a force in the future of the Republican party.
1 - 25 / 25
SPREAD THE WORD