I think a well-read college freshman might have used longer and more complex sentences in fewer paragraphs.
That didn’t come out the way I wanted. Please let me try again.
I think Palin’s supporters like leaders that are decisive and take action quickly - actions they happen to agree with, but actions. And with no looking back. The opposite extreme is “analysis paralysis”.
Whatever her supporters might think, I think Palin should put more thought into her actions and words. For example, if she had a coherent speech for her resignation, her political position could be much better now.
Have I dug myself out, or just deeper? I blather, you decide.
Sorry I got nothing there are no blue shoes.
Czarcasm, you keep bitch-slapping people back to the OP. I can’t help but notice that the OP says help me, not “do it for me.” So why don’t you take a swing at it?
I was going to, but Sam Stone came up with the one I was going to post-the Kudlow interview.
Why is this in Great Debates if you won’t debate what it takes to be an effective president or consider alternatives to speeches and papers. If you’re looking solely for data, with no commentary from others, shouldn’t this be in General Questions?
That’s not an argument. That’s a starting point for an argument. So go. Or else why is this in Great Debates? You’re not debating.
Yeah, that’s the one. Thanks. That’s a good interview that shows the ‘other side’ of Palin.
I think it’s important to reiterate that as governor she had approval ratings as high as 93%, and just before she was picked as the VP candidate, her approval rating was still 69% and her disapproval rating was only 9% - which I believe was the highest for any governor in the U.S. at that time. This was after she had been in power about as long as Obama has been President. So clearly she was not an obvious idiot and the kind of lightning rod she’s become since. In fact, her approval rating in Alaska even after she quit has remained above 50%, and in the recent primary in Alaska her endorsement of the challenger to Lisa Murkowski is widely credited to have flipped the race, so she’s still a very popular figure among the people who know her best.
I find her current behavior to be baffling. The only thing I can think of is that she is intentionally creating a character that has been tested to resonate with the kind of people she’s trying to reach. Call it the Glenn Beck model of political posturing. To me, that doesn’t speak well of her. But without that theory, I can’t reconcile her shrill, simplistic and nonsensical speech patterns with the thoughtful, well-versed person that shows up in the interviews before she was picked as VP.
Your confusion lies within the words “market-based” and “free market”. Penalizing a commodity in order to force more expensive commodities is not free market.
And the reason why conservatives are opposed to it is that it will drag down a failing market that is already teetering on collapse.
- Her writings and/or lectures are brought forth by posters who believe that they show her to be well-reasoned and/or intellectual.
- Others(perhaps me, if I disagree) tell why that information presented does not show her to be well-reasoned and/or intellectual.
- [del]Profit![/del] Debate.
All right. Only got half way through and then the internet tubes must have gotten clogged up. This does show that she can recite canned answers. But there was no questioning of her statements, or questions about anything other than current affairs in Alaska at the time. The answers were devoid of real substance as well, but I can’t recall a president providing substance either. I’ll try to get the rest of it later. But so far it sounds like a softball interview. I don’t think the common impression of Sarah Palin is based on her inability to discuss the things she knows. It’s about the very limited set of things she knows, and her resorting to ad hominem attacks, fiction, and non sequitors when those are exposed.
I’m think she is also following the George Bush strategy of building low expectations so that she can one day look better when she’s expanded her repertoire of canned answers. In that respect, seeing the interview now might look like she is thoughtful and well-versed, but in actuallity it demonstrates the typical shallow responses of politicians who have read the Cliffs Notes. If ‘worthy of being president’ is a standard set by Bush, what I’ve seen so far shows she is there. Sadly, my standard, based on practical expectations, is not much higher than that.
No. If you don’t want to focus on what the subject of this thread is about, you are perfectly welcome to start a thread on why her actions are a better judge of her character than what she has written and said. This isn’t in General Questions because I would like a discussion/debate on whether what is presented qualifies as well-reasoned and/or intellectual.
For example, see post #91, in which TriPolar critiques some links that have been provided.
Yeah, and don’t be an idiot like TriPolar and forget to quote the post you are reponding to.
I love Sarah Palin. My love for her was reaching astronomical proportions when it was rumors she had had a boob job. Alas! I wish we had a bottle blonde bimbo with a boob job running for office. Not her politics, of which I know nothing and care less, but the way in which she seems to represent the downtrodden, unwashed masses of the American underclass. All those uneducated, derided trailer trash, the uncouth, superstitions, bible and/or gun toting fools so hated by the ruling political class that has become so accustomed to the certainty of their power. Sarah Palin is Lenin, the American way. At least I like to think she is. I hope the café-latte drinking fuckers and the guys in expensive suits are shitting their pants.
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
OK. Your thread, your rules. It just seems like an unreasonable restriction.
Don’t hold your breath.
Followup to Post #91
I’ve watched the rest of the video, and saw nothing to change my mind. Czarcasm, you owe me 24 minutes of my life. The one time the interviewer attempted clarification of her comments, she repeated her original statement until he gave up (note to all talking heads: when the subject does this, the proper response is ‘I am ending this interview now because you are not directly addressing my question’). There is no substance there, or a demonstration of intellectual capacity.
I hope this does not incur the wrath of the OP**, but I’ll continue by discussing the question of what intellectual worthiness of a president might be.
I don’t see that great intellectual ability translates directly to good presidential qualities. The lack of it is a clear sign of bad presidential qualities though. As examples, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Obama seem to have (had) much higher than average intelligence, but this did not keep them from making bad decisions, IMHO. Bush Jr. and Ford were clearly intellectual midgets, and it reflected in their decisions. Johnson, Reagan, and Bush Sr. fall somewhere in the middle, with mixed results. The need for intellectual capacity relates to the ability to evaluate complex situations, whose nature cannot be predicted ahead of time. It seems obvious to me that someone who has never attained an in depth understanding of any complex subject would be incapable of doing the job. Intellectual ability can also be measured by depth of knowledge. Any body who can’t locate major countries on a map, and get close to minor ones, would be unqualified in my book. A lack of knowledge about other countries political systems, cultural environments, and history would be ill equipped as well. Beyond that though, there are many important considerations. Political savvy is an important requirement. Without it, the best ideas will go nowhere. Leadership is a qualification, but the ability to lead sheep is below a minimum standard.
There are many more ways to measure the ability of a person to become president, but in my book, Mrs. Palin falls short in all categories. If you read my prior post (the serious one), I noted that practical expectations have lowered the bar, yet Mrs. Palin still falls short.
**Actually, I hope this what you are looking for, otherwise, you have incurred my wrath.
Arguably, an economy which is going to collapse anyway.
Maybe this Sarah is a pod person living off the other Sarah’s rep. But who switched her?
Wait, TriPolar has given me a credible explanation for the rising visibility of Sarah’s deficiencies. I return to my thesis that most people barely pay attention to their own state officials.