Conservative Reaction to Sarah Palin Advancing in Another Direction
Since last Friday when Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin announced she is leaving the governorship and ‘advancing in another direction’, the internet and television talk shows have been burning up with speculation and predictions about what is going on with Sarah Palin. People have analyzed the conservative reaction to Sarah Palin and the liberal reaction to Sarah Palin. It’s been an interesting and entertaining show to watch to say the least.
The leftist reaction to Palin’s announcement has been predicable to the point of being tedious. They’ve declared she can’t handle the heat, speculated that she’s sick and accused her of being a ‘quitter’. Some of her more aggressive detractors tried to start rumors that she was facing a federal indictment on embezzlement charges. That has backfired and blown-up in their collective faces.
Many of the Republican operatives in Washington have been walking around with confused looks on their faces. They say its an odd move, they think its risky, they wonder what she’s getting ready to do. It is apparently as unsettling for them as it is for their democratic peers. Sarah Palin unleashed from the confines of representing the people of one state IS risky for those who are comfortable numb in their current positions of power as part of the political establishment.
The conservative reaction to Sarah Palin advancing in another direction is not that hard to describe. Elation. Energizing. Hopeful. You see, Palin is the type of person that Middle Americans can relate to, understand and rally around. Its not a ‘worship’ of her as a person, but the excitement of having a person who represents US, the people of this great nation. She’s someone who isn’t a Washington insider in any way, shape or form. She’s someone who shares our values, beliefs and life experiences and an American. Best of all, she doesn’t want to force her beliefs on anyone else. She believes in freedom as do most Americans. She’s not business as usual and that is what we want.
She has hinted as to her future plans on her facebook and twitter accounts, but she’s not said anything definite. However, there are many of us in Middle America that are hoping she’ll take the job of leading us in pulling this country out of the headlong nose dive we have fallen into.
After making her announcement, batting back some rather nasty attacks and letting some dust settled, she has hinted that she is looking beyond Alaska to the national stage and a ‘higher calling’. Ann Coulter was on target when she wrote that Palin has gotten too big for Alaska … to big for any one state. She has become a national leader, draws huge crowds and wild enthusiastic support. She seems to understand that she has been put in a position through which she has the power to implement real change for the better of our country. The method through which she plans to do that is still up for speculation.
We live in interesting times, dangerous times. We need strong, principled leadership. Many feel that Palin embodies the qualities that we need in our national leadership right now.
The conservative reaction to Sarah Palin ‘advancing in another direction’ is an unequivocal, ‘come on with it, we are behind you.’
Check out the video below. Crazies for Sarah Palin Hey Hey!
So hey hey, this song is for us
So put your hands in the air
If you’re crazy like us, hey hey
Hey hey, that’s freedom you hear
Coming right to your ear
That’s the sound from our bus, hey heyWhy try to be like someone else
When you can only be yourselfNo one can sing the song you do
Be true, be legendary youSo I won’t sell out even if the whole world thinks I’m crazy
Sarah Palin – Video
July 6th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I’m behind Sarah in any choice she makes, and I believe she would be a fantastic president. BUT…unless the 8average* voter get’s sick and tired of politics as usual, she will remain a target of leftist moonbats,asshats and morons, and that bothers me. I’d like to see her catch her breath, then come out swinging.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Every quitter, famous or not, can learn from her mistakes, particularly if you’re resigning from a position of leadership.
1) Palin made blaming others a centerpiece of her announcement.
2) She gave in to the temptation to grandstand.
3) Palin paid little mind to her successor.
4)She was neither transparent nor coherent.
Steven DeMaio
July 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Andrew – you have the talking points down pat. That’s the exact same thing the main stream media is putting out.
1. I didn’t hear her blame anyone.
2. She didn’t grandstand – just the opposite. She made the announcement at a time and place to minimize the media, very informal.
3. She paid close attention to her successor and as per all reports is leaving the state in good hands.
4. Her speech was certainly coherent (unless you have a learning disability perhaps?) – it was warm, gracious, clear and concise.
I realize that the leftist pundits keep trying to hammer the message that she is incoherent, etc. But its not working with people who have a brain and listen for themselves. But then, that’s not who you are trying to convince, is it.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Sarah has a good heart, a clear head, and great legs…what’s not to love? And if middle America gets wise to the current freakshow in D.C., she’s electable.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
What I’m thinking is that Palin’s move puts yet more pressure on Obama to finally get some results, as the soaring rhetoric isn’t hypnotizing the plebes like it used to.
Last week Helen Thomas, Colin Powell, and Warren Buffet all turned on him. Polls are looking droopy for The One lately.
And Obama’s porkulus program is a train wreck, all it’s done is bump interest rates and tank the dollar. We are being laughed at by bad guys like Tehran, Pyongyang, and Al Qaida who amazingly turned-down Barack’s friend-requests.
Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.
Go get ‘em Sarah-
July 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Reaganite Republican had the following to say:
“…
Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.
Go get ‘em Sarah-“
.
.
.
.
There you go again!!!
You keep referring to Gov. Palin as the “Gipper-in Heels”. Did you by any chance watch her resignation? Think about what she said and ask yourself the question; “Would the real ‘Gipper’ have made that speech?”
I think that if you really answer that question honestly you would have to say no. The reason you would have to say no is because the real ‘Gipper’ was no quitter. Do you remember during a debate sponsored by the Nashua Telegraph in 1980 when the producer tried to silence Reagan? What was Reagan’s response to that?
“I paid for this mike, Mr. Green!!!”. There was no quit in that man!
He also knew how to deflect criticism, unlike your ‘Gipper-in-heels’. During the 1984 debate with Mondale when the real ‘Gipper’ was asked to respond to claims that he was too old to carry out the duties of President he knew exactly how to put that issue to rest.
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
You can’t be seriously advocating that Governor Palin is on a level that even comes close to Ronald Reagan.!!
Just in case you have not seen the resignation speech itself, here is a link to it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk
One of the finer points she tried to make during that speech was when she tried to use the analogy of a basketball player who knows when to pass the ball as a justification for her resigning from office.
A better analogy would be this. With the game on the line midway into the third quarter, Governor Palin passed the ball to her Lt, Governor, then walked off the court and left the Gymnasium, leaving her team and her fans in the lurch while she went home to plan her strategy to play for the Pros (attack in a different direction).
Would the real ‘Gipper’ have done that??????????
The person you call the ‘Gipper-in-heels’ could be better described by the term ‘Wimper-and-Squeals’!
July 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Reaganite Republican had the following to say:
“…
Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.
Go get ‘em Sarah-“
.
.
.
.
There you go again!!!
You keep referring to Gov. Palin as the “Gipper-in Heels”. Did you by any chance watch her resignation? Think about what she said and ask yourself the question; “Would the real ‘Gipper’ have made that speech?”
I think that if you really answer that question honestly you would have to say no. The reason you would have to say no is because the real ‘Gipper’ was no quitter. Do you remember during a debate sponsored by the Nashua Telegraph in 1980 when the producer tried to silence Reagan? What was Reagan’s response to that?
“I paid for this mike, Mr. Green!!!”. There was no quit in that man!
He also knew how to deflect criticism, unlike your ‘Gipper-in-heels’. During the 1984 debate with Mondale when the real ‘Gipper’ was asked to respond to claims that he was too old to carry out the duties of President he knew exactly how to put that issue to rest.
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
You can’t be seriously advocating that Governor Palin is on a level that even comes close to Ronald Reagan.!!
Just in case you have not seen the resignation speech itself, here is a link to it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk
One of the finer points she tried to make during that speech was when she tried to use the analogy of a basketball player who knows when to pass the ball as a justification for her resigning from office.
A better analogy would be this. With the game on the line midway into the third quarter, Governor Palin passed the ball to her Lt, Governor, then walked off the court and left the Gymnasium, leaving her team and her fans in the lurch while she went home to plan her strategy to play for the Pros (attack in a different direction).
Would the real ‘Gipper’ have done that??????????
The person you call the ‘Gipper-in-heels’ could be better described by the term ‘Wimper-and-Squeals’!
By the way…I seem to be striking a nerve somewhere because it seems lately that my posts are “awaiting moderation”
July 7th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Reaganite Republican had the following to say:
“…
Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.
Go get ‘em Sarah-“
.
.
.
.
There you go again!!!
You keep referring to Gov. Palin as the “Gipper-in Heels”. Did you by any chance watch her resignation? Think about what she said and ask yourself the question; “Would the real ‘Gipper’ have made that speech?”
I think that if you really answer that question honestly you would have to say no. The reason you would have to say no is because the real ‘Gipper’ was no quitter. Do you remember during a debate sponsored by the Nashua Telegraph in 1980 when the producer tried to silence Reagan? What was Reagan’s response to that?
“I paid for this mike, Mr. Green!!!”. There was no quit in that man!
He also knew how to deflect criticism, unlike your ‘Gipper-in-heels’. During the 1984 debate with Mondale when the real ‘Gipper’ was asked to respond to claims that he was too old to carry out the duties of President he knew exactly how to put that issue to rest.
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
You can’t be seriously advocating that Governor Palin is on a level that even comes close to Ronald Reagan.!!
Just in case you have not seen the resignation speech itself, here is a link to it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk
One of the finer points she tried to make during that speech was when she tried to use the analogy of a basketball player who knows when to pass the ball as a justification for her resigning from office.
A better analogy would be this. With the game on the line midway into the third quarter, Governor Palin passed the ball to her Lt, Governor, then walked off the court and left the Gymnasium, leaving her team and her fans in the lurch while she went home to plan her strategy to play for the Pros (attack in a different direction).
Would the real ‘Gipper’ have done that??????????
The person you call the ‘Gipper-in-heels’ could be better described by the term ‘Wimper-and-Squeals’!
July 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Beth, excellent post. I too am a big fan of Ms. Palin’s and think she has sacrificed her place on the small stage of Alaska to effect great things for the entire country.
I like Reaganite’s comments above, also. “Gipper-in-heels”…gonna steal that one.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Now that I know how this ‘moderation’ process works, I won’t be making multiple posts anymore in an effort to understand it.
.
.
.
Going back to Reaganite Republican’s earlier comment:
“Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.”
.
.
.
.
Do you understand the difference between a ‘Free’ Enterprise system and a ‘Private’ Enterprise system??? I would say that from your post, you don’t. Of course, you might understand that difference, so for those readers that don’t understand the difference between the two, here are the definitions:
Private Enterprise:
“Economic activity in the private sector, as opposed to the public sector (federal, state, and local government). Private enterprise is undertaken by private individuals who hope to realize a profit from their activities and who bear any risk associated with those activities.”
Free Enterprise:
“freedom to trade without government control: the doctrine or practice of giving companies the freedom to trade and make a profit without government control”
.
.
.
.
The key words in the definition of Free Enterprise are ‘without government control’, while ‘Private’ enterprise simply refers to economic activity in the private sector.
In practice, a true ‘Free’ enterprise system would be one in which ‘caveat emptor’ would be the absolute watchword for all who participate. Under that kind of system there would be no regulations whatsoever and the market itself would be the only constraints place on trade. Under such a system, the ‘Peanut Corporation of America’ would have been the norm rather than the abomination. In other words, there would be no Health Inspection system for any food company on any level under a true ‘Free’ enterprise system.
The ‘Securities and Exchange Commission’ (SEC) would also be non-existent. With no SEC, the most unscrupulous among us would be completely free to run their scams and schemes with no regulatory agency around to impede their ability to market their financial ‘snake oil’ without any restrictions.
Of course, even if those regulatory agencies exist, you can still get burned by a Bernie Madoff hre and there. Unfortunately, you can get worse even if you have those regulatory agencies, if you, by regulation, allow practices that are completely financially irresponsible.
For instance, in the late ‘90s, the regulations on the banking industry were watered down so substantially that a person could obtain a mortgage without even providing proof of income. Not only that, but the ‘reserves’ against deposits that a financial institution was required to keep was drastically lowered. This was done in an effort to open up the financial markets so that more people could buy a home. The change in the rules took our financial system to almost ‘Free’ Enterprise conditions because there were effectively no reasonable controls in place.
About the only control left in the financial markets were those controls provided by the private rating services, such as AM Best, Moody’s, Standard and Poor, etc. You may recognize these names because they are the companies that issue the credit ratings for Insurance and other companies, as well as the bond ratings for businesses and municipalities.
Well, the combination of trying to make the financial markets more in line with ‘Free’ Enterprise by watering down the regulatory restrictions, while at the same time lowering the ‘reserve’ requirements proved disastrous!!!
Those Financial institutions were granting mortgages to people, who were not even required to show proof of income, and then were turning around and packaging these mortgages as securities. They would go to the ratings companies with these securities that should never have been granted more than ‘Junk’ status, and those rating companies were blessing them with AAA Bond ratings. In the meantime, those same financial institutions were drawing down their reserves to a point where they were insufficient for continued viability, even though those reserve levels were legal under the new regulations. What do you think were the results of all those factors playing together?
Look around at all the homes under foreclosure right now, and the effect that it is having on all of us, not just the jerks who lied about their income in order to qualify for a no money down, interest only mortgage when they bought that house seven years ago, but also for those who can’t even sell their house now because of the glut of foreclosures that are driving the housing market into oblivion, and dragging the rest of the economy with it.
I would say to you. Give me a ‘Private’ Enterprise system with adequate (not excessive) regulation anytime over what has transpired over the last ten years while the politicians in charge looked the other way.
Radical is radical whether it originates from the left or the right!!!!!! And this is one of those prime examples of how the two extremes (left and right) have unwittingly worked together to create the problem.
The left wanted affordable inner city mortgages and the right wanted deregulation. Put the two together and you have deregulation that allowed people in the inner city to be able to buy a $60,000 home that they would not otherwise be qualified for, but also allowed many more suburbanites to buy that $450,000 home that they were not qualified for either!!!
It is hard enough for this country to continue to survive with the two radical extremes of this country punching each other’s light out while they each try to screw this country in such a manner that they can blame the other side. What makes it worse is when they join forces, in brainless stupor, to create a financial mess that threatens to send this country straight into third world status.
Excuse me while I go throw up!!!