Honestly, she just needs to shut up now.

#101
#101
volinbham said:
To continue to beat the dead horse - I agree with the source of the animus; it's the intensity and expression of the animus that has me a bit puzzled.

I certainly don't respect her as any sort of leader of consequence. I probably wouldn't even want her as mayor if I lived in Wasilla. Other than that she doesn't exist in my consciousness other than all these threads LG dedicates to her.
Click to expand...


I was thinking about that last night and then read the thread this morning to see how it evolved last night and into today, and I think I have an answer for you as to why the level of disdain for her.

The reason Palin gets so much attention from the media and in particular the left is that it is exapserating and frustrating to have the conservative movement (and I use that phrase meaning not to say Republican) insist so unwaveringly that everyone should be mesmerized by someone so clearly lacking in fundemantal intelligence.

Now, part of that is your definition of "intelligence." The left is traditionally defined as go-to-the-museum-watch-PBS-and-CNN-and-read-the-Sunday-paper to get culture and news. Palin obviously is not in that mold. I udnerstand the argument from the conservatives that she's a no nonsense common sense kind of a person that has a different "intelligence" maybe that we on the left equate to qualifying you for office.

But when you look like a deer caught in headlights on what should either be a) easily answered questions, or at least b) easily dodged questions, we just can't past it.
 
#102
#102
No matter how much you want to try LG, palin will never be the face of the republican party.
 
#105
#105
lawgator1 said:
The reason Palin gets so much attention from the media and in particular the left is that it is exapserating and frustrating to have the conservative movement (and I use that phrase meaning not to say Republican) insist so unwaveringly that everyone should be mesmerized by someone so clearly lacking in fundemantal intelligence.
Click to expand...

The conservative movement? How on earth are you defining that?
 
#106
#106
KB5252 said:
Is there even a face of the republican party right now?
Click to expand...


I personally think that there is a war going on right now between three factions. You've got the party longtermers, like Steele, you've got the conservatives,like Limbaugh and the other radio and tv people, and then you have some folks like Romney who are caught in no man's land.

Post Reagan, the battle has been between the party machine and the real conservatives. They came together on Bush, especially W. But right now there is no one that is acceptable to both camps and that is what is causing this huge vacuum.



volinbham said:
The conservative movement? How on earth are you defining that?
Click to expand...


I would there be referring primarily to the social or religious conservatives, not so much the economic or more business-minded people. In fact, I daresay that the latter roll their eyes at Palin as much as anyone.
 
#107
#107
lawgator1 said:
I would there be referring primarily to the social or religious conservatives, not so much the economic or more business-minded people. In fact, I daresay that the latter roll their eyes at Palin as much as anyone.
Click to expand...

The action in the conservative movement is with the latter. The tea party stuff and the shifts in polling data suggest growing fiscal conservatism among social moderates and even social liberals.

So a small minority of people is supporting Palin and you think that's the reason for the vitriol?
 
#108
#108
volinbham said:
The action in the conservative movement is with the latter. The tea party stuff and the shifts in polling data suggest growing fiscal conservatism among social moderates and even social liberals.

So a small minority of people is supporting Palin and you think that's the reason for the vitriol?
Click to expand...



I agree with your first paragraph and think that is a good thing, both for the Republican party and the country.

As to your second, I'm on the outside looking in. Steele occassionally pops his head up and seems to distance himself from the social conservatives, but he's a politician and so its lukewarm, at best. Right now, the social conservatives are the ones that have a microphone in their faces every single day, for hours on end.

One thing you have to give the Dems credit for is taking advantage of the fact that it was so easy to sell Limbaugh and Hannity as the true face of the Republican party. They may not be, in reality, but their egos loved it and they took up the cause and were as much in the news as was McCain.
 
#109
#109
lawgator1 said:
... One thing you have to give the Dems credit for is taking advantage of the fact that it was so easy to sell Limbaugh and Hannity as the true face of the Republican party. They may not be, in reality, but their egos loved it and they took up the cause and were as much in the news as was McCain.
Click to expand...

Why, what good will it do? This is not an election year. That political capital will be exhausted long before the next election cycle.
 
#110
#110
VolDad said:
Why, what good will it do? This is not an election year. That political capital will be exhausted long before the next election cycle.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. The social conservatives have free air time every single day of the week. Fox News features social conservatives as commentators, not fiscal ones. The radio shows are a mixed bag, to be sure, and there are some fiscal conservatives on there. But they aren't the most popular ones.
 
#111
#111
lawgator1 said:
The reason Palin gets so much attention from the media and in particular the left is that it is exapserating and frustrating to have the conservative movement (and I use that phrase meaning not to say Republican) insist so unwaveringly that everyone should be mesmerized by someone so clearly lacking in fundemantal intelligence.

Now, part of that is your definition of "intelligence." The left is traditionally defined as go-to-the-museum-watch-PBS-and-CNN-and-read-the-Sunday-paper to get culture and news. Palin obviously is not in that mold. I udnerstand the argument from the conservatives that she's a no nonsense common sense kind of a person that has a different "intelligence" maybe that we on the left equate to qualifying you for office.
Click to expand...


Yea, you need to step into a union shop sometime.
 
#113
#113
Many of Obama's most ardent supporters think he is doing a wonderful job with the economy - how on earth would you suggest they are valuing or showing intelligence?

Honestly, the intellectual divide doesn't run along party lines.
 
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
I get it, you think unions suck, blah blabh blah blah blah.

That has nothing to do with the issue of how one pictures intelligence in a candidate.
Click to expand...

Are we speaking strictly about presidential candidates or candidates in general?

I don't think Palin is the sharpest tool in the shed by any means. I also don't think I would consider voting for her in the least. I would however point out that so many supposed intellectuals the nation has voted into office (presidential, congress, senate) are directly responsible for the mess we have now. Maybe it is time we stop voting for them and vote based on common sense from now on, few of the people in office now seem to have it.
 
#115
#115
volinbham said:
Many of Obama's most ardent supporters think he is doing a wonderful job with the economy - how on earth would you suggest they are valuing or showing intelligence?

Honestly, the intellectual divide doesn't run along party lines.
Click to expand...



You base your statement on disagreeing with his approach on the merits. But, his approach, and the way he presents it, is an informed policy decision. I understand you think its a lousy one, but it has a basis in theory that has some intricacy to it.

The perception, right or wrong, is that a Bush or a Palin simply would not grasp the issue, and would basically do whatever they were told to do. Nothing inherently wrong with trusting your advisers. But Obama has the advantage of at least appearing to know what he's talking about.
 
#116
#116
lawgator1 said:
I get it, you think unions suck, blah blabh blah blah blah.

That has nothing to do with the issue of how one pictures intelligence in a candidate.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with unions sucking.

More to do with the description of the left you laid out. Union people are predominantly left and they are nothing like you described. I do find it humorous that many of them were willing to put aside their racist views when confronted with a candidate that they thought would give them everything they wanted.

Also, on the subject of intelligence, I consider someone like Obama much more dangerous. Sure he is more intelligent than her. He can digest and retain knowledge, but what he does with that knowledge is rather troubling. So really what use is intelligence when you complete f*** up things with said intelligence.
 
#117
#117
lawgator1 said:
You base your statement on disagreeing with his approach on the merits. But, his approach, and the way he presents it, is an informed policy decision. I understand you think its a lousy one, but it has a basis in theory that has some intricacy to it.

The perception, right or wrong, is that a Bush or a Palin simply would not grasp the issue, and would basically do whatever they were told to do. Nothing inherently wrong with trusting your advisers. But Obama has the advantage of at least appearing to know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

As far as economic policy is concerned it obvious to anyone paying attention he has no clue.

There is a huge difference between bluffing and actual knowledge on policy.
 
#118
#118
lawgator1 said:
You base your statement on disagreeing with his approach on the merits. But, his approach, and the way he presents it, is an informed policy decision. I understand you think its a lousy one, but it has a basis in theory that has some intricacy to it.

The perception, right or wrong, is that a Bush or a Palin simply would not grasp the issue, and would basically do whatever they were told to do. Nothing inherently wrong with trusting your advisers. But Obama has the advantage of at least appearing to know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

the liberal press said the same thing about ronald reagan. whoops.
 
#119
#119
lawgator1 said:
I get it, you think unions suck, blah blabh blah blah blah.

That has nothing to do with the issue of how one pictures intelligence in a candidate.
Click to expand...

when you have the unions setting policy in this country i do think it reflects poorly on obama's intelligence.
 
#120
#120
lawgator1 said:
You base your statement on disagreeing with his approach on the merits. But, his approach, and the way he presents it, is an informed policy decision. I understand you think its a lousy one, but it has a basis in theory that has some intricacy to it.

I base it on the fact that there is ZERO evidence that he is handling the economy well. To say he is shows a failure of knowledge about how the economy works.

The fact that he's thought something out doesn't make it an intelligent decision.

The perception, right or wrong, is that a Bush or a Palin simply would not grasp the issue, and would basically do whatever they were told to do. Nothing inherently wrong with trusting your advisers. But Obama has the advantage of at least appearing to know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

He certainly doesn't appear that way to many who are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with his understanding of how the economy works.

Sure he is intelligent. But concluding his economic policy is great is not an intelligent conclusion.
 
#124
#124
droski said:
the liberal press said the same thing about ronald reagan. whoops.
Click to expand...


Yes, but even I would concede (and the liberal media did eventually) that Reagan had the general presence, the gravitas, to be an effective president in a lot of ways. W had bravado but came up severely lacking when things got complicated. Reagan at least stuck to his guns. Bush ran away from the criticisim. Guy was basically AWOL for 18 months.

Palin? Well, we see what timber she is made of right about now. I have to agree (gasp!) with Rove that it is going to make it too easy to assail her sticktoitiveness when the going gets tough.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top