Sarah Palin... The Movie

Remove all ads!

Is set to premier in a month.

I don't really have much more to add, except that this can only be viewed as a re-introduction to the public, and the opening salvo of now what I expect will be a presidential bid. Before I saw this, I assumed she wasn't running.

 

Isn't the part of Palin being played by Snooki?

 

I was kinda hoping they would show her naked. It just might turn my vote....

 

Oh goody. Not to be missed, I'm sure this one is. (yeah right)

The problem is, she wasn't Vice-Presidential material, so why in the world would she delude herself into thinking she's Presidential material? I have nothing against soccer moms who believe that sharing an ocean with Russia somehow gives them international clout... but the idea of letting someone like that of rule the mightiest nation in the world is preposterous, to put it mildly.

 

Well how 'bout that. And they said they'd never make 'Jackass 4.'

 

Ugh. Even though I like almost everything she says and believes in she will be an anchor as a GOP Presidential candidate as the left and the media (Fox excepted) will stop at nothing to destroy/belittle/marginalize her. How liberal women sit by and let her character be assassinated will always amaze me? Then again I guess it shouldn't as black conservatives suffer the same fate.

 

In Sarah's case, it's not what she believes that particularly concerns me, as I tend to be rather conservative myself. It's who she is, or rather, who she isn't.

You want your President to be a truly exceptional person -- way smarter than you could ever hope to be. Sarah appears to be of average intelligence, at best, and *maybe* is slightly above the US average in terms of how informed she is about the world. Don't you remember during the Vice Presidential debates when she completely dodged/ignored certain questions asked of her because she had absolutely no idea what to say? "Duh, I think I'll just talk about energy, because I have no idea what you just asked me!" Someone like that should be our Commander-in-chief??? Not a chance.

If she's an anchor (the pull the boat down kind, not the ground everyone in something solid kind) there's plenty of justifiable reason for it. Having an agreeable opinion isn't nearly enough to make someone worthy of the Presidency.

 

... hasn't happened yet.

 

You give her far more credit than I would. I think you are being somewhat diplomatic about her intelligence.

Her boss at FOX News, Roger Ailes:

However, on the record:

That sounds odd considering how Sarah has done just the opposite. In fact, liberals I know, myself included, are mostly saying, "Bring it on, Sarah! Better you than a much better candidate, and much smarter one, like Huntsman, for instance.

Again:

Considering how Aiiles dumped Beck, despite his legion of willing lemmings, I believe it. Ailes is no fool.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/22/roger-ailes-palin-stupid-fox-news-new-york_n_865117.html

 

They are making another sequel to Dumb and Dumber?

 

I agree - the GOP has much better candidates out there. However, I'm not 100% convinced that just because Palin decides to run she will win. It's not that I think she waited too long - most candidates start early to get name recognition and build a war chest for the primaries, but neither of those should be a problem for Palin - everyone already knows who she is, and if her fund raising efforts for Republicans in the 2010 midterms are any indiciation, she won't have a problem there either.

I'm just not 100% confident that she'll win the nomination. She has a base of supporters who are fanatical, but can she convince 50% of the GOP base to vote for her? The other big problem for Republicans is if she actually does win the nomination - her unfavorable numbers are already in excess of 50%. It's hard to win the general election with numbers like that.

 

Aldeth - I agree. Nevertheless, I think that someone like Mitt will put her on the ticket in the no. 2 slot just to satisfy the Tea Potters. Which means that it will be like 2008 all over again, with a few new wrinkles [like Obama's record as an issue]. But I bet she doesn't use the "Pals around with terrorists," nonsense again, not after Bin Landen's "departure." Of course you never know with Sarah.

 

Oh, please. Yes, she took some punches - all people at this level do - but she has been fairly controversial and confrontational herself. Remember the whole "Death Panels" phrase she coined when she jumped into the deep end of the slime-fight about the healthcare reform? Or the "palling around" issue? Pretty much on any topic she's spoken, Mrs. Palin has consciously adopted a confrontational tone. Hey, when you are pushing, every now and then you get pushed back. However, I rather doubt she's seen more "character assassination" than most high-level politicians. Bush, McCain, Gore, Kerry - every one of them has imo waded through more slime than she did.

As for people stopping at nothing to destroy or belittle her, I'd say she has had it way easy compared to, say, one Hillary Clinton so many people on the right (and left, often enough) have loved to hate for some two decades now. Let's put it this way - when Sarah Palin gets to be involved with something like Vince Foster's death and is assumed by as many people to be an accomplice to murder, then she and HRC can get together for a drink and swap war stories.

Overall, I can appreciate Mrs. Palin's abilities as a politician, but like neither her ideas nor what I know of her character. Meh, it's a free country - if she wants to run, let her. I hope she loses.

 

I never had any doubt she'd run. She can't NOT run.

I don't think she'll sit second fiddle to anyone again. She'll either be the top spot or consider herself a kingmaker. She evidently has her martyrdom pre-loaded, since if she doesn't get the top spot, her devoted followers are already ready to declare "the lamestream media destroyed her." She isn't responsible for anything she herself says or does, apparently.

As much as it nauseates me to say it, I think we as a country need her to run and win the nomination. Her, or Bachman, or Gingrich, or Santorum. The crazier the better. They need to run and they need to lose, so that the GOP establishment will finally decide that pandering to low-information, conspiracy-theory-prone voters is a losing electoral strategy, even though it's proven itself to be a wildly profitable media strategy (just ask Roger Ailes). McCain's loss was never seen by conservatives as a sign that the better man won; they convinced themselves that McCain lost because he was "not conservative enough / a real conservative." As a result the entire movement doubled-down on the crazy, giving rise to the Tea Party, Glenn Beck and a completely closed information loop (they only trust information from FOX, talk radio, conservative blogs and their email in-tray – despite all of these outlets being notoriously inaccurate). A primary victory and eventual loss for a moderate like Huntsman, Pawlenty, Romney or Daniels would only convince these movement conservatives to get even more partisan. Something we DON'T need.

I truly long for the days of a sane, reality-based conservatism in America. Only when the nut-jobs lose big will we see that happen.

 

Does she need to win 50% of the votes or just more than the other guys? If there are alot of horses in the race, she just needs to win by a nose, right?

 

Yes, but they have to pander to the extreme base. Medicare is a good example. Everyone of them would have to "walk the plank" saying they will support the Ryan changes to Medicare, whether they believe it or not. The Republicans have to live with what they can't rise above, regaarding the Tea Party. Maybe someday one of them will have the nuts to stand up to them. I get that from you, DR. But I wouldn't count on it.

 

Of course they do. They have to and they will. That's exactly what McCain did. That's how we got Palin, and "That guy," and "pals around with terrorists." He pandered, hard. Had he been a "true conservative" all along, he wouldn't have had to pander to them, but instead try to appeal to the middle. Therein lies the paradox of the current conservative movement. If you're a true believer who panders to the middle and loses, the base thinks you surrendered to liberalism. If you're a moderate who panders to the far-right and loses, it's because you weren't a real conservative to begin with. The campaign you ran and the opponent you faced are seemingly irrelevant.

I'm not counting on it either - I'm a realist. But it needs to happen.

 

Mac was a conservative with a very small c, before 2008. There was even some talk of him switching parties. In 2008 there were conservatives who loathed him so much that they were going to support Hillary over Mac! But that's no longer the case, not since Obama.

 

I've said it once, and I'll say it again - you really do have the most convoluted, involved, expensive, long-winded, resource intensive election process known to man. I wonder how much of the US National Debt is used to pay for this monstrous exercise.

 

Eh, I didn't believe it then either. I think it was just some radio personalities (I think Limbaugh and Coulter said something to that effect, right?) trying to muddy the water against McCain in the primaries so someone further right wins. If it had come to McCain vs Clinton, I very much doubt many republicans would vote for a Clinton.

Ironic, really, because I think Obama is no further to the left than HRC is. I think that at the primaries his idea for healthcare reform was actually less inclusive than both her and Edwards' was, for example, and since coming into office he hasn't really pushed all that hard for many of the things he promised - such as the closing of Gitmo, open government and protection of whistleblowers, etc. Even on one of his biggest priorities, the healthcare bill, the final version contained so many compromises that it falls short of most ideas he had (although he did change his mind towards mandatory insurance, probably to avoid a fight with the insurance companies). I'm not sure how that compares to the broken promises of earlier presidents, but it probably bothers no few people who voted for Obama in 2008.