Obama up Palin down

[04SCTLS]

President Obama's popularity ratings solid among Democrats; Sarah Palin's falling with Republicans


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...d_among_democrats_sarah_palins_falling_w.html

WASHINGTON - President Obama and Sarah Palin are heading in opposite directions - with their popularity.
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows the commander in chief has weathered a rough second year in office and the outraged howls from Democrats he irked by backing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
The survey found that 78% of Democrats believe he should be renominated for a second term, while only 19% - the lowest number since the question was first asked in March - want the party to nominate someone else.
And 85% of liberals want him renominated for a second term - a surprisingly solid number given that many on the left think he caved too easily and could have gotten a better tax deal.
Obama's high ratings came before the Senate ratified the START treaty with the Russians and Congress passed the health and compensation bill for 9/11 first responders. The survey was conducted Dec. 17-19.
Meanwhile, the poll found that 51% of Republicans are not likely to vote for Palin if she runs for President in 2012.
That's a huge turnabout from December 2008, when only a third of Republicans said they probably wouldn't vote for her, while 67% thought they likely would.
Palin's "likely" rating is 10 points worse among Republicans than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and 18 points worse than ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
The numbers suggest that despite her widespread name recognition since being picked as John McCain's running mate in 2008, Palin has lost ground in convincing even Republicans, much less crucial independent swing voters, that she's presidential timber.
Many senior GOP officials worry that a Palin candidacy will divide the party, making it easier for Obama to win reelection.
Even some Republicans firmly in Palin's corner privately believe she won't end up running in 2012, preferring the lifestyle that has earned her millions of dollars from two books, six-figure speech fees and her reality television show.
While Palin has a political action committee, drops frequent hints she may run and remains the darling of the Tea Party movement and many conservative Republicans, "her appeal is quite limited beyond the Republican base," a prominent GOP official told the Daily News.

________________________________________________________________

You can't fool all the people all the time.
Yes even Republicans are waking up to the fact that Sarah Palin is a ding dong.(a lovely term I ran across that next to bubble headed fits her perfectly - Sarah the bubble headed ding dong )

Notable conservatives are coming out with their opinions in public.
She's just not on the same intellectual level as Obama, Romney, Huckabee and others.
Here's a look at the recent criticism.
____________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Tobin , Commentary editor, Dec. 17 :

Everything she does and says lately seems geared toward reinforcing the negative opinion of that 60 percent already convinced that she isn't qualified to be the commander in chief ...
So, rather than taunting people like Krauthammer, who merely said aloud what so many others are thinking about her unpresidential demeanor, maybe Sarah Palin ought to be waking up to the fact that she is simply unelectable.

Peter Wehner , former Bush administration official, Dec. 17 :

Virtually every time Ms. Palin speaks out, she reinforces some of the worst impressions or deepest concerns many of us have about her. If she were to become the voice and representative of the GOP and the modern conservatism movement, both would suffer a massive rejection.
Sarah Palin will not be elected president; and for her sake, I hope she decides not to run.

Charles eKrauthammr , columnist, Dec. 14 :

"She is not practiced in policy. The Katie Couric interview that she originally had was not, you know, a gotcha interview. They were fairly simple questions that she had trouble answering. I think that damaged her in the eyes of even non-ideological people.
Now, I would have hoped that she would spend the next years sort of getting really deep into policy and becoming an expert the way a lot of other candidates have done as they mature and approach the presidency. She hasn't."

Sig Rogich , longtime GOP operative, Dec. 14 :

As a candidate nationwide I don't think she is electable for a presidency, and I think that over time you will see reasons why.

Christine Todd Whitman , former New Jersey governor, Dec. 12 :

"I don't think she'll win nationwide," she said. "You've got to start competing for the center. And so far, I haven't seen a lot of outreach on the part of Sarah Palin for that."
When asked if she would support Palin as the nominee, Whitman said Palin hadn't yet made her case."If she were the Republican candidate, she'd have to show me a lot more than I've seen thus far as far as an understanding of the depth and the complexity of the issues that we face."

Joe Scarborough , MSNBC host and former GOP congressman, Nov. 30

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Matt LaBash, Weekly Standard writer, Nov. 29 :

Sarah Palin's Alaska is really about: self-love ... Karl Rove, one of several conservative non-lamestream media Palin critics who've reared their heads of late has a point when suggesting that the American people might expect a certain level of gravitas in someone who's considering running for president, and that starring in your own reality show might not be the ticket.

Barbara Bush , former first lady, Nov. 29 :

"I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful," the former first lady tells the CNN host. "And she's very happy in Alaska. And I hope she'll stay there."
David Frum , former Bush speechwriter, Nov. 23:

Imagine you're at the circus. On the ground is a poodle performing a stunt. Above the clown's head, dangling from a thin wire, is a piano. The piano is teetering, tottering, looking as if at any moment it might slip, crash to earth, and crush the dog. Impossible not to watch, right? And that's the Palin show, only this time with the party of Lincoln as the little dog, and Sarah Palin as the piano.

Mona Charen , syndicated columnist, Nov. 19 :

Her capacity to connect with a crowd is something most politicians can only dream of. I will always remember her 2008 convention speech as a rollicking star turn. She would be terrific as a talk-show host -- the new Oprah.
But as a presidential candidate? Someone to convince critical independent voters that Republicans can govern successfully? Absolutely not.

Peggy Noonan , columnist, Nov. 5 (in response to Palin comments comparing her reality show to Ronald Reagan's acting career):

Excuse me, but this was ignorant even for Mrs. Palin ... The point is not "He was a great man and you are a nincompoop," though that is true.

Karl Rove , former Bush aide, Oct. 27 :

"With all due candour, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office" ...
Being the vice-presidential nominee on the ticket is different from saying 'I want to be the person at the top of the ticket. There are high standards that the American people have for it[the presidency] and they require a certain level of gravitas, and they want to look at the candidate and say 'that candidate is doing things that gives me confidence that they are up to the most demanding job in the world?.?

Ann Coulter , columnist, April 21 (in response to the question of whether Palin should run in 2012):

"I do love her, but I think I prefer her doing what she's doing now, at which she's spectacular. She's making a lot of money and she's having a great life. She has - she's giving all this energy to the base of the Republican Party - the Conservative Movement."

____________________________________________________________________________
She has not grown much in her knowledge since 2008 and has no gravitas.
Palin is best on the Reality Show level where she does well amusing herself and the audience with her entertaining narcisistic larger than life indulgences like saying a prayer then killing for pleasure. LOL!

 

[cammerfe]

The left and marginalization

The left has been very effective in marginalizing VPs by harping on some unimportant fact. Dan Quale put an 'e' on the end of potato. Gerald Ford tripped on the 'plane steps. Neither had much to do with intellect.

I'm still watching Palin. I'm not sure at this point if she can be 'The One'. But the more that progressives try to bash her, the more I see that they're afraid of her.

In regard to Obama, you can't polish a turd.

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

The left has been very effective in marginalizing VPs by harping on some unimportant fact. Dan Quale put an 'e' on the end of potato. Gerald Ford tripped on the 'plane steps. Neither had much to do with intellect.

I'm still watching Palin. I'm not sure at this point if she can be 'The One'. But the more that progressives try to bash her, the more I see that they're afraid of her.

In regard to Obama, you can't polish a turd.

KS

Well now it's conservatives who are attacking her.
They see her as a loser for POTUS and are only protecting the party.
She makes a good mascot though, like big bird or something and if it wasn't for her touting her "religious" credentials to a gullable wanting base audience (like Bush did)who thinks that because she's God's candidate that somehow she can perform miracles with slogans but without intellect, she would be even lower.

I've seen Obama in action off the cuff for 2 hrs without a teleprompter as a guest speaker at that republican retreat last year
(perhaps you missed it or chose to ignore it) and the depth and breath of his intellect handling 5 point loaded questions and statements makes Palin look like a disabled child in comparison.
When conservative hero Ann Coulter says it's better for her to be a mascot than a serious candidate you can't just dismiss it as a leftist attack.

 

[shagdrum]

I'm still watching Palin. I'm not sure at this point if she can be 'The One'. But the more that progressives try to bash her, the more I see that they're afraid of her.

BINGO!!

The left is dead set on branding Palin as a simplistic and unappealing caricature of who she truly is. Unfortunately, that is how they conduct politics; character assassination. It ties back to both the nihilism inherent in progressivism (the need to delegitimize people and ideas instead of honestly confront ideas on their merit) as well as a lack of confidence in one's own argument being able to win the day in the arena of ideas.

Unfortunately, as '04 demonstrates that childish political "gossip" is appealing enough to override critical examination of that caricature.

FWIW, my personal pic for president is Gingrich with Paul Ryan as his VP.

 

[shagdrum]

Well now it's conservatives who are attacking her.
They see her as a loser for POTUS and are only protecting the party.

They said the same thing about Reagan.

 

[04SCTLS]

In regard to Obama, you can't polish a turd

But in regard to Palin you can! LOL!

 

[04SCTLS]

They said the same thing about Reagan.

Reagan overcame his percieved shortcomings and won over enough of the american people.
Palin has yet to do the same.
If anything she is (currently) losing popularity as the public sees more of her.

 

[04SCTLS]

BINGO!!

The left is dead set on branding Palin as a simplistic and unappealing caricature of who she truly is. Unfortunately, that is how they conduct politics; character assassination. It ties back to both the nihilism inherent in progressivism (the need to delegitimize people and ideas instead of honestly confront ideas on their merit) as well as a lack of confidence in one's own argument being able to win the day in the arena of ideas.

Unfortunately, as '04 demonstrates that childish political "gossip" is appealing enough to override critical examination of that caricature.

FWIW, my personal pic for president is Gingrich with Paul Ryan as his VP.

Yes but here it's conservatives who are voicing their concerns and not liberals attacking her.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes but here it's conservatives who are voicing their concerns and not liberals attacking her.

Is it conservatives voicing their concerns or is it republicans? That is a very important distinction to make.

They see her as a loser for POTUS and are only protecting the party.

In regards to a lot of these quotes, I would say YOU see her as a loser for POTUS and are projecting that assumption onto a lot of those quotes. For instance...

Ann Coulter , columnist, April 21 (in response to the question of whether Palin should run in 2012):

"I do love her, but I think I prefer her doing what she's doing now, at which she's spectacular. She's making a lot of money and she's having a great life. She has - she's giving all this energy to the base of the Republican Party - the Conservative Movement."

Where does Coulter imply that Palin is a loser for POTUS.

She has not grown much in her knowledge since 2008 and has no gravitas. Palin is best on the Reality Show level where she does well amusing herself and the audience with her entertaining narcisistic larger than life indulgences like saying a prayer then killing for pleasure. LOL!

It is comments like this that highlight your ignorance of Palin.

To say that she has not grown in knowledge since 2008 is absurd if you actually hear her speak or (more importantly) read what she writes on facebook.

Only when what you see of her is the heavily edited, one-sided caricature of Palin promoted by the media, the entertainment industry and the inside-the-beltway crowd can you believe something so simplistic.

As has been pointed out before, people who hear Palin generally grow to like her while people who hear about Palin grow to dislike her.

What Palin is doing is actually very shrew, IMO, if there is any chance of breaking the MSM's control of the narrative concerning her. As long as the MSM controls the narrative they can brand her as they see fit. And, as Journolist proved it is a coordinated, intentional demonizing of her.

Reagan was sucessfully able to go around the media directly to the people. Palin's approach seems to be very similar; just adopted to a 21st century/24 hour information/internet age.

 

[04SCTLS]

Where does Coulter imply that Palin is a loser for POTUS

Oh come on.
When Coulter says she prefers Palin to be a mascot instead of a candidate that means she does not consider her presidential material.

Even you're not enamoured enough with her to pick her as your candidate.

 

[04SCTLS]

As has been pointed out before, people who hear Palin generally grow to like her while people who hear about Palin grow to dislike her.

What Palin is doing is actually very shrew, IMO, if there is any chance of breaking the MSM's control of the narrative concerning her. As long as the MSM controls the narrative they can brand her as they see fit. And, as Journolist proved it is a coordinated, intentional demonizing of her

Palin is charismatic and has a larger than life story in which she seems very happy.
Liking someone is not the same thing as thinking they are capable of being president.

The more I see and listen to her the more it confirms the impression she made since the Katy Couric interview.
She couldn't name one newspaper or magazine she regularly reads when asked a simple question.
All of them is not a good answer if you can't even name one.
Not very on the ball.
When she pardoned the turkey 2 years ago while other turkeys were being strangled and killed in front of our eyes, it was like a ditzy truth is stranger than fiction Monty Python skit come to life.
It still cracks me up when I think of it.

 

[shagdrum]

So... because of anecdotal evidence, she has been proven to you a moron. Nothing to say about her ideas, views on the issue or governing record just some PR gaffs she has made.

If that is your standard of judgment, then name one politician who you would not consider an idiot?

The standard of judgment the MSM is imposing (and you are buying into) is impossible to meet. However it does give them the ability to control the narrative by providing convenient excuses to justify their demonization of her.

Anecdotal "evidence" can be blown out of proportion to prove something regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence cannot logically prove ANYTHING.

However, that standard of judgment is ONLY imposed on those whom the MSM dislikes.

 

[04SCTLS]

So... because of anecdotal evidence, she has been proven to you a moron. Nothing to say about her ideas, views on the issue or governing record just some PR gaffs she has made.

If that is your standard of judgment, then name one politician who you would not consider an idiot?

The standard of judgment the MSM is imposing (and you are buying into) is impossible to meet. However it does give them the ability to control the narrative by providing convenient excuses to justify their demonization of her.

Anecdotal "evidence" can be blown out of proportion to prove something regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence cannot logically prove ANYTHING.

However, that standard of judgment is ONLY imposed on those whom the MSM dislikes.

But we're ostensibly talking here about people in her own party being critical of her and not the mainstream media leftists demonizing her.
If such a large chorus of her own party is starting to share Coulter's opinion there must be some truth in the MSM attacks on her credibility for POTUS.
So you will defend her from media attacks but that's still not enough for you to make her your candidate, instead supporting more seasoned professionally conventional candidates like Gingrich.

 

[04SCTLS]

Anecdotal "evidence" can be blown out of proportion to prove something regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence cannot logically prove ANYTHING

It's hard to overcome a first impression.
Anecdotal evidence of a how a candidate acts on the fly is more telling than scripted speeches, photo ops and celebrity lovefests.
The "Macaca" moment is sometimes something that cannot be easily recovered from.
2 years later Palin is still trying to overcome her first impression.
Emotion is as powerful a force as intellect, sometimes more.
It speaks to the judgement of a person for not being in control of what's going on in their "advertizing" when doing a photo op.
If the only thing memorable are a candidate's gaffes that doesn't say much about their original thinking if they have any that is.

 

[04SCTLS]

So... because of anecdotal evidence, she has been proven to you a moron

I am entitled to form my own opinions based on my observations.
It's part of lessons from life.
You know my reasons and thoughts for wanting to keep religion science and politics at arms length from each other for a healthy society but she wants to put more talking about religion into politics.
Premeditatedly criticizing JFK recently about his religion comes to mind.
It's not very presidential IMO to criticize an iconic first catholic former president who was tragically assassinated over not bearing his soul on how his religion gave him strength or something in some keynote speach.
Kennedy considered that a personal matter not something to be worn on his sleave.
Kennedy's religion and his attitude towards it is not something that the public usually thinks about or gets discussed much or worked up about, so why bring it up other than to trumpet your own religion and attitudes as superior.
This is a more telling observation of her besides the comical turkey gaffe which can more readily be dismissed as just an unintentionally sickly humorous event.
Religion ultimately comes down to being the chosen ones which is insulting and not very unifying to other creeds.
I don't know how she can expect to get any traction out of this besides in her core base whom she already has in the bag.
If anything I think it's a tactical mistake which has contributed to her slide.
She's needlessly limiting her appeal here over her misplaced religious pride and out of school display of ego in this manner.
This more subtle but more important gaffe adds to my opinion of her as a self centered dolt.
JFK is an icon and the public is squeamish about hearing her essentially say that she is better than him on this level.
It's unseamly.
Killing animals for pleasure on her show even though they eat them IMO will turn off more people than it impresses.
Yes we all eat killed animals but don't give me the hypocrisy argument.
Showing real killing is bad as advertising and another tactical mistake.The turkey thing was a gaffe but this is deliberate.
Who gets a thrill watching animals get shot.
Everybody knows she's a hunter but why put that in people's faces.
They could have left that out of the show for the general public instead of having her chirping away cheerily while doing the killing.
It's really just a big ego trip for her and some of her base personally.
She's not clever enough to not alienate
those who currently are undecided or already not supportive of her.
First make no new enemies.
She's not totally empty or without some thought or wit (her success speaks to that) but she's not thinking outside her box much and has in fact injured herself as the poll numbers would indicate.
She's too divisive and small minded and I don't think she has the right stuff to be the next president.
And neither do you it seems.
Since she's not your pick give me your reasons for dismissing her as your candidate?
And then tell me with a straight face why you think despite your dismissal of her she's qualified
As we say in chess...check

 

[shagdrum]

My reasons for supporting Gingrich have more to do with his experience in Washington; specifically in working inside the legislature. While I usually am loath to elect representative's instead of executive officials, IMO the biggest thing we need is a STRONG reversal of many of the policies and laws of the last two years and Gingrich already knows better then most how to work that system to get that done.

I would agree with the claim that, "Anecdotal evidence of a how a candidate acts on the fly is more telling than scripted speeches, photo ops and celebrity lovefests". However I would say that anecdotal evidence has to be honestly and objectively looked at which is something the MSM is unquestionably NOT doing.

You know the validity of a viewpoint by how honestly it confronts opposing views. When the MSM has to cherry pick and distort in order to make it's point, it is not making a valid point.

Besides, does the issue of whether or not someone can name the magazines or newspapers the read really matter; especially in the internet age? Frankly, anyone who gets their information only (or even mostly) from magazines, newspapers and even TV is pretty uninformed about how the world works.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers
–Thomas Jefferson​

Also look at how much of a setup Couric's question was. No matter how Palin answered the question, it provided nothing but fodder for the anti-Palin media. All the answer to that question shows is how naive Palin may have been at that time to MSM bias and in how poor of a job McCain's campaign did in preparing her for a media outlet that was hostile to non-progressive points of view.

 

[04SCTLS]

Besides, does the issue of whether or not someone can name the magazines or newspapers the read really matter; especially in the internet age? Frankly, anyone who gets their information only (or even mostly) from magazines, newspapers and even TV is pretty uninformed about how the world works.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers
–Thomas Jefferson​

Oh come on
She couldn't even come up with the New York Times LA Times or Washington Post, US News Report, Time, Newsweek.
Any of those would have done for an answer.
She obviously didn't read any current events periodicals or even know them by name.
That's what "all of them" says to me.

And this Jefferson quote coming from you is nothing but convenient.
Mr student uppittedly dissing current events periodicals when it suits him.
Wikileaks is telling us more about how the world works than the scholarly tomes you digest but that's getting off topic.
I still think Palin shows bad tactics and is marginalising herself.

 

[shagdrum]

Mr student uppittedly dissing current events periodicals when it suits him.
Wikileaks is telling us more about how the world works than the scholarly tomes you digest but that's getting off topic.

What does Wikileaks say about how the world works?

I'll make it simple for you; NOTHING.

Wikileaks is simply a collection of facts that doesn't say ANYTHING about how the world works in and of itself. Only through logical interpretation of those facts (in other words, philosophy) can anything about how the world works be divined.

Of course, when you are completely ignorant of philosophy and the various viewpoints involved, it is easy to simply buy into emotionally appealing narratives that use cherry picked facts from wikileaks and other sources as anecdotal "proof" to deceive useful idiots into accepting. Basically, without a strong grasp of the various worldviews involved, wikileaks becomes nothing but a useful tool for propagandists to deceive fools into uncritically supporting agendas they don't understand.

This is true on a broader scale as well and is what Jefferson was referring to. If your only understanding of the way the world works is what you see on the news, you know nothing. Only by FIRST understanding the various worldviews involved (theory) can you reasonably make heads or tails of things. Anything else is simply emotional reaction.

There is also the possibility that you understand "how the world works" to simply mean government actions and policy. But if the scope of how the world works is viewed that narrowly then there really is no discussion to be had because the role of theory is not simply misunderstood but foolishly (and dangerously) dismissed.

 

[04SCTLS]

So your defence of Palin is that knowledge of current events is not relevant to her ambitions?

Your philosofical knowledge may be great but it's not of much value without knowledge of current events to put it in context.

I disagree with your contention that knowledge gained from blogs,periodicals and the MSM does not make one wiser and smarter.(if that is what you are saying)

My 40 years of current events knowledge has served me well.

 

[shagdrum]

So your defence of Palin is that knowledge of current events is not relevant to her ambitions?

Not at all.

Your philosophical knowledge may be great but it's not of much value without knowledge of current events to put it in context.

Agreed, but the inverse is also true.

I disagree with your contention that knowledge gained from blogs,periodicals and the MSM does not make one wiser and smarter.(if that is what you are saying)

Fortunately that is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that by themselves, facts do not make one wiser, and by itself knowledge gained from news sources does not make one wiser and smarter. Facts have to be interpreted and that is where philosophy comes in.

Only gleaning knowledge from news sources is intellectually lazy, allows one to be manipulated easily and results in a very incoherent, counterproductive, simplistic and inaccurate understanding of the way the world works. Typically, you would have a more accurate understanding of the way the world works if you never consumed any news.

Critical thought is necessary to gain any real understanding of how the world works, and critical thought is IMPOSSIBLE without theory.

My 40 years of current events knowledge has served me well.

Frankly, at times your thought pattern seems to be one of first buying into emotionally appealing narratives and then developing rationales for those opinions. That is the exact opposite of how critical thought works. However, it is easy to rationalize that thought process buy claiming you are not tied to some "rigid ideology" and are a free thinker, because, superficially, that sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately, it does not hold up to scrutiny.

A) To buy into emotionally appealing narratives that don't appear to conform to an ideology is not "free thinking" but is simply being manipulated into conformity by propagandists

B) To implicitly eschew ideology ignores the invaluable functions that theory/philosophy/ideology serve. You CAN NOT make sense of the world with out it. Having a strong understanding of even one ideological worldview is probably the best way to identify those who look to deceive in political discourse by how they misrepresent that ideology. Without a strong understanding of ideology, it is easy to mistake legitimate criticism as misdirection and/or hyperbole because the critique might be complex and take effort to understand but the dishonest attempt to subvert that criticism is more simplistic and emotionally appealing.

Another function ideology serves is that it can effect how one analyzes the world and the various facts available. Understanding how the various views effect those examinations of reality is vital in making sense of things, especially in an era where we have an overabundance of information. In the computer age, being able to examine facts from multiple worldviews is indispensable in making sense of the world.

There is also the more "textbook" function of ideology; namely developing a coherent understanding of the world instead of an understand rooted in projecting personal desires and egos onto the world that serves to inhibit any honest attempt at finding out the truth.

Simply being able to nail together two boards doesn't get you anywhere. You have to know what you are building first.

When it comes to broader social issues and understanding how the world works, ideology is necessary and indispensable. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find any truth general truth about society without. Attempt to glean some general truth about society simply from the news will ONLY lead to distortions of reality and opens one's self to being easily manipulated by propagandists and demagogues.

That is why those people like to avoid that discussion and eschew ideology; it makes it easy to manipulate by dumbing down the conversation so they only have to appeal to the lowest common denominator (typically ego).

 

[04SCTLS]

I don't have to study capitalist ideology to be a capitalist.
For some of us it comes naturally.
I'm not rejecting ideology out of hand as being irrelevant.
Newspapers and periodicals have more than just news articles
in them to read. There's investigative reporting and analysis of complicated issues.
I can tell the difference in ideology between say Hot Air and Huffpo as obvious examples.
The media is the message.
It also depends on what your interests are and what you want to understand.
I don't need to study ideologies to be successful in life.
Perhaps for your career it may be something of value.

I'm with the 51% of republicans who do not consider Palin to be presidential material.
I'm not being manipulated by ideologues to come to my conclusion.
Palin is running for herself and not for president.
How else to explain her tactics of not moving to the middle.
.

 

[foxpaws]

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."

Thomas Jefferson​

 

[shagdrum]

I don't have to study capitalist ideology to be a capitalist.

capitalism is simply the natural course of events when markets are left to their own devices, it is not an ideology.

But, you do need to have some understanding of ideology to be able to identify when someone is distorting ideology toward their own ends.

Newspapers and periodicals have more than just news articles
in them to read. There's investigative reporting and analysis of complicated issues.

And that analysis is dicated by worldview; by ideology.

It also depends on what your interests are and what you want to understand.
I don't need to study ideologies to be successful in life.

Very true. Teddy Rossevelt famously complained about businessmen because in his experience they don't know much of anything outside of their own business. He found scholars and elites as more interesting sources to talk to.

I am not meaning this as an insult, BTW. TR's views of businessmen as uninformed in the ways of the world served as justification for TR and other elites to dictate business terms to those businessmen, grossly overstepping not only Constitutional limitations, but the knowledge of the elites who could not possibly know enough to run businesses more efficiently.

The point I am making is that you have to have a good understanding of ideology to have any coherent understanding of how society works.

You don't need a coherent understanding of how society works to be sucessful in life. However, a handicapped understanding of how society works can end up costing you and the rest of society.

There is nothing so costly as ignorance and government is the greatest means of imposing that cost on society.

I'm with the 51% of republicans who do not consider Palin to be presidential material.
I'm not being manipulated by ideologues to come to my conclusion.
Palin is running for herself and not for president.
How else to explain her tactics of not moving to the middle.

Yet all you seem to be able to articulate is specious talking points against Palin then start to backtrack when those talking points are shown to be hollow...

Have you considered the possibility that she simply knows that this nation is a center-right nation, that there is a STRONG reaction against progressivism that is gaining steam right now (possible political realignment?) and that, nationally, conservatism sells politically whenever it is accurately articulated to the populace.

If she can bust through the media distortions of her, she may be on very good footing, IMO.

 

[shagdrum]

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."

Thomas Jefferson​

Your point?

This quote can not be inconsistent with the other quote by Jefferson I cited and is not inconsistent with what I said about Jefferson's statement.

Newspapers are an invaluable check on government, but they are inherently biased (especially in the time of Jefferson). Therefore a strong foundation in political thought is necessary to be able to critically analyse the news; to separate editorializing from facts in order to glean the truth.

Even without that foundation, newspaper bias is by far the lesser evil of the two.

The big difference is that, in the past century, we have seen the rise of heavily biased news sources that attempt to present themselves as objective and above partisanship while confusing opinion with hard news coverage. That illusion has only served to confuse things.

 

[04SCTLS]

Have you considered the possibility that she simply knows that this nation is a center-right nation, that there is a STRONG reaction against progressivism that is gaining steam right now (possible political realignment?) and that, nationally, conservatism sells politically whenever it is accurately articulated to the populace.

If she can bust through the media distortions of her, she may be on very good footing, IMO.

If your center right contention is accurate then why are her negatives so high.
Her show has been doing well so she's popular there and the public has plenty of exposure to her personality, but her political negative numbers keep rising.
Now within her own party as the starting article states.