Palin's intellect revealed by emails...

The conventional Flesch-Kincaid readability test indicated that Sarah Palin’s emails were actually written very well, at around an 8th grade level with a score between 8.2 and 8.5, hardly being an illiterate as to what her critics had previously defined her as, AOL noted that this was in fact “an outstanding score for a leader.” For perspective about this number, Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, more highly edited than what Sarah Palin had in her emails, ranked about 8.8 about the same scale, while Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation came in at 9.1.

Research by Smart Politics on the readability scores of past State of the Union Addresses, also confirmed Palin is well spoken, if she did indeed write the majority of the 24,000 emails released to the public last week. George H.W. Bush
scored an average of 8.6 in his SOA’s while Bill Clinton comes in at 9.5. Ronald Reagan, another GOP member targeted by the liberal media, logged a remarkable 10.3 rating for his State of the Union Addresses, and George W. Bush, who endured 8 years of criticism for his unique ability to make up words on the fly, earned a 10.4 rating on the Flesch-Kincaid scale, just edging out the “Great Communicator” Reagan.

The final comparison comes down to our current President, Barack Obama, known as one of the most proficient
orators in most American’s current history, but his “Yes We Can!” campaign speech came in as ordinary,with an average Flesch-Kincaid rating of 7.4.

http://uselectionnews.org/sarah-palins-level-of-intellect-disclosed-by-email-analysis/854129/

Well now, ...... the good news is, ........ the Palin Haters have yet to criticize her for growing hair in both of her arm pits.

If it weren't for the fact that she's a quitter...

WHAT, ...... she quit shaving under her arms?

HA, no matter what she does she could never impersonate a Motorcycle Mama.

I mean like its more than just "long underarm hair" that turns their crank to get their "VOOM, VOOM, VOOM" a going.

I see your off your meds again Sam.

Aaron, I think she "quit" and in so doing proved that she is much brighter than folks imagine (though still far from my first choice). She simultaneously took away many liberals' ammuntiion while increasing her own visibility and bank account.

Oh my, you are in big trouble now, Michael.

I couldn't agree with most of what you said Mike. I just don't happen to think she's qualified to run this country for a couple of reasons, neither of which is her intelect.

I am curious though, how did she take away liberals ammunition? Many say that she quit because she was guilty of what they accused her of.

Obviously excellent rhetoriticians will be able to use any controversy to their advantage, but Palin does much better cashing her checks on the road than defending herself against charges, most of them absurd, at home.

I don't know what most of the charges were but the one regarding the ex-bil had glue.

SheikBen wrote:Obviously excellent rhetoriticians will be able to use any controversy to their advantage, but Palin does much better cashing her checks on the road than defending herself against charges, most of them absurd, at home.

It is like Alice Cooper once said when asked about his outlandish performances and music. He said, "he laughs all the way to the bank". When I hear or read about people condemning her or trashing her family or calling her a "Quitter" or worse, I bet she sets back and laughs. More power to Sarah Palin. I hope she cleans up, I really do.

I’ve changed my thinking (now that I no longer hafta worry bout it) and have decided that anyone that is living apart from and/or has gotten a divorce from the spouse they married ……. should never, ever be hired by anyone to do a job or perform any kind of work …… because it is quite obvious and factual that said person is not capable of and/or not trustworthy enough to perform “a job” that they promised and/or claimed they would and could perform.

Iffen their screw-ups …… catch-up …. with them and they hafta vacate one job, …… then they will surely do the same iffen you hire them. So don’t be hiring any divorcees because they are probably lying about their sticktoitofness, abilities and qualifications “to perform a job” for you.

Cato wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Obviously excellent rhetoriticians will be able to use any controversy to their advantage, but Palin does much better cashing her checks on the road than defending herself against charges, most of them absurd, at home.

It is like Alice Cooper once said when asked about his outlandish performances and music. He said, "he laughs all the way to the bank". When I hear or read about people condemning her or trashing her family or calling her a "Quitter" or worse, I bet she sets back and laughs. More power to Sarah Palin. I hope she cleans up, I really do.

I hope she does too Cato. But the fact that she quit on Alaskians and is laughing all the way to the bank is reason enough to state she is not qualified to run this counrty, no other issues need to be considered.

Aaron,

In practical terms of policy, how do you feel Alaskans have suffered with Palin's Lt Governor at the helm instead of Palin? I don't think there is any point of substantive difference between Palin and her successor.

It's not about policy Mike, it's about leadership and Palin's shown a suprisingly lack of any. And as the Presidency, known as the bully pulpit is all about leadership and I don't believe Palin would be any more of an effective leader then President Obama, I see no reason to give her the opportunity.

I believe that a majority of Americans feel the same way I do and if she were the Republican nominee, I think it would hand the election to President Obama by a wider margin then his victory over McCain.

Aaron wrote:It's not about policy Mike, it's about leadership and Palin's shown a suprisingly lack of any. And as the Presidency, known as the bully pulpit is all about leadership and I don't believe Palin would be any more of an effective leader then President Obama, I see no reason to give her the opportunity.

I believe that a majority of Americans feel the same way I do and if she were the Republican nominee, I think it would hand the election to President Obama by a wider margin then his victory over McCain.

First, there is a really good article in the Washington Times. In my opinion Jeffery Kuhner hits the nail on the head with regard to Sarah Palin and I agree with him. He also is pretty much on target with his view of the republican feild of candidates.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/21/the-middle-american-revolt/

So far as comparing Palin's ability to Obama's, no matter what you think of her, she would be head and shoulders above the "Community Organizer". Of course, common groundhog shale, would be an improvement over Obama.

I actually agree with you that she isn't presidentual material in a number of ways. What I like about Sarah Palin has nothing to do with whether or not she'd be a good president. What earned her my respect is that she took the fight right to the left's front door. Unlike most of the so called conservative candidates, who dilly dallied around and whining and wimbering, never actually took the liberal movement to task for their big government hypocritical ways, she did. The press ate her alive, but she has always stood her ground. Good for her in my opinion.

Speaking personally, I like the people that the article names. I would like to see Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry win the nomination. I would also not be hurt if Chris Christie would decide to run. Additionally, I could live with Ron Paul, winning the nomination. Any of these four would work for me.

I got to thinking while writing this. The question comes up what if a traditional republican candidate like Mitt Romney wins the nomination and runs against Obama, could I vote for a Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Right now the answer for that is no, I would have to leave the choice for president blank or write in a candidate. I see little difference in Obama and folks like Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, or even Huckabee. The only real difference I can find is who they "Let feed at the Trough First". We've more than enough of that.

First off Cato, you better be careful in agreeing with the author on this piece regarding Sarah Palin. It will garner you the wrath and the almighty Sam Co-Gar.

Mrs. Bachmann is more than a Sarah Palin clone. On domestic policy, the Minnesota Republican is more substantive; on foreign policy, she is more serious; and most importantly, she has much lower negative ratings - especially among independents. Mrs. Palin (should she run) may be able to win the GOP nomination. The presidency, however, is a bridge too far. The media will eviscerate her. Outside of her intense base, she is despised and distrusted. She personifies the cheap politics of celebrity. Mrs. Bachmann is the opposite: a relentless enemy of cultural liberalism, who can forge a diverse populist coalition. She appeals to the vast middle of America. Her campaign has the potential to tap into the country’s profound alienation from Washington. And thus, she is surging in the polls.

Also, Bachman can't be a front runner because Stephanie's not buying it. I do have one question though. The author states that "the liberal regime - once dominant - is tottering." I'm curious as to when the liberal regime was once dominant?

Aaron wrote:
Also, Bachman can't be a front runner because Stephanie's not buying it.

Oh, I didn't realize that. My Bad!!!

Aaron wrote:
I do have one question though. The author states that "the liberal regime - once dominant - is tottering." My question is, when was the liberal regime once dominant?

First, this is just my opinion and that is all that it is. I have nothing to back it up other than what I am seeing.

Names are funny. What does "Liberal" mean, really? Frankly, I haven't a clue anymore. I once heard that our founders would have been considered "Liberals". Whether that is the case or not, I don't know. "Liberal" today seems to be those in favor of a strong centralized government influance. However, I see many so called conservatives supporting the very same thing, so the name is misleading, at least in my opinion.

What I think is dominate is not a name, but an ideaology. It is the ideaology of the government knows best and that we the citizens are not smart enough to conduct our own lives. Both sides of the isle, liberal and conservative alike seem to adheare to this ideaology and it is this ideaology that seems to be crumbling. This is why I believe Obama is falling in the polls and the republican candidates have failed to inspire.

I think Obamacare brought this thing of government involvement in all fascets of life to a head. People began to realize that politicans really seldom have an individuals best interests at heart and thus began to revolt. Many are begining to understand the cost of government influance in their lives and are starting to demand government be limited.

I don't if that answers your question, but that is the way I understand what is happening.

I'm just curious as to what others think because the way I see it, even if liberalism means what it did from years gone by, the concept isn't the same.

Take Marxism for instance. The concept is a strong central government making the choices for the people but under Marxism, the proletariat was expected to work. Marx contention was that capitalist exploited the working man.

Today's liberals don't hold those same values. In today's society, liberals believe that the poor and down trodden should be taken care of and the capital used to take care of those individuals should come from the rich.

Aaron wrote:I'm just curious as to what others think because the way I see it, even if liberalism means what it did from years gone by, the concept isn't the same.

Take Marxism for instance. The concept is a strong central government making the choices for the people but under Marxism, the proletariat was expected to work. Marx contention was that capitalist exploited the working man.

Today's liberals don't hold those same values. In today's society, liberals believe that the poor and down trodden should be taken care of and the capital used to take care of those individuals should come from the rich.

Isn't that the old saying, "from those according to their ability, to those according to their need".

I don't know what the politicans that are in office and those that put them there are thinking or what their core values really are. What I do understand is that the nation they have created today is a mess. I fail to understand why they can't see that and why they fail to take the necessary steps to correct the mess they have made. Take Obama for example, you would think that he would have got the message when people revolted so over his healthcare plan. Yet, it was as if he didn't hear the public or even care. It was as if he thought himself superior to the public and that he and he alone knew best. The same is true with congress and with state and local governments. I guess, you are right about me, I'm just not smart enough to comprehend.

You know like I would like to see you know what Michelle's verbiage would rate you know like you know.

CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."