I'm not buying it

She believes that Paul Revere warned the British as well.

In this week's Newsweek, Sarah Palin tells Peter J. Boyer why she thinks she can win in 2012. See more images from her cover shoot with photographer Emily Shur.


"I believe that I can win a national election," Sarah Palin tells Newsweek's Peter J. Boyer, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa. "I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe that I can win."

source

She's wrong on both fronts even if she does look good.

Could she win a National election, I think she could if she went about it right. Of course, IF is a big word and the operative word here. What I think she would have to do is, first and foremost not sound or act like a loose cannon.

If (there is that word again) she were to stick to her guns on liberty, free enterprise, and small unintrusive government, I think she would have a shot. However, if she goes off on a tangent, especially one the media can twist, she's toast.

I think her IF went out the window when she tucked tail and quit on Alaskians.

Aaron wrote:I think her IF went out the window when she tucked tail and quit on Alaskians.

If her quiting is the reason you don't care for her, I respect that. Afterall it is a valid point.

Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about her quitting. While I don't know the reason for her resignation, I do understand that she had become political fodder and faced suit after suit, which was cost her and the Alaskian taxpayers plenty and maybe that was apart of it.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I think her IF went out the window when she tucked tail and quit on Alaskians.

If her quiting is the reason you don't care for her, I respect that. Afterall it is a valid point.

Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about her quitting. While I don't know the reason for her resignation, I do understand that she had become political fodder and faced suit after suit, which was cost her and the Alaskian taxpayers plenty and maybe that was apart of it.

That's pretty much the reason she gave but I'm not buying that. She cut and ran to cash in.

Yes, but there are those huge tracts of land...

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I think her IF went out the window when she tucked tail and quit on Alaskians.

If her quiting is the reason you don't care for her, I respect that. Afterall it is a valid point.

Personally, I'm not certain how I feel about her quitting. While I don't know the reason for her resignation, I do understand that she had become political fodder and faced suit after suit, which was cost her and the Alaskian taxpayers plenty and maybe that was apart of it.

That's pretty much the reason she gave but I'm not buying that. She cut and ran to cash in.

I can't say I blame her. She was executed by the media. Beat on by every liberal pundit that came down the pike. Her family was dragged through the mud. She went through one legal challenge after the next. I think if I had been in her shoes I would have done exsactly the same thing.

Just so you know, I don't think she is the best candidate, conservatives or libertarians can put up. I haven't made up my mind yet who the best candidate would be. I do think, however, that if she were to run a serious campaign, presenting a ledgitimate and workable platform based on free enterprise, a proper defence stratragy, and liberty along with avoiding hot button issues and remarks, she could win.

Here is why I think she could win. Her and her family are not elitists or at least don't present themselves that way. They are more like average working people and I think she would connect with them.

I don't blame Palin for tucking tail and running as it was likely a once in a lifetime opportunity and she went from getting by to financial security for not only her but her children and grandchildren as well.

With that in mind, I've told my kids too many times that it is not how many times you get knocked down in life that matters, it's how many times you get back up that counts. In my opinion, Palin didn't get back up, she scurried away.

Character counts to the majority of Americans. As I said before, I'm not buying it.

Funny thing about that Sarah Palin, Aaron. Fox News just released a poll showing Bachmann with 10% and Palin, tied with Paul & Guliani, at 9%. Palin hasn't even announced she is running.

As I said on the other thread, Rick Perry's polling at 14% and he hasn't announced either but he will as right now, he's the only one that has a punchers chance of defeating Obama.

He has his own baggage. Should he announce you'll hear a lot more about all of it.

I've heard about much of his baggage and still, he's the only candidate that has a punchers chance.

I thought Bachmann was it........

He's not the only one. I think Chris Christie could give Obama a run for his money and very well could win. Same thing for Daniel out of Indiana or Rubio from Fl but there's no one in the current field that has a chance of unseating the President, particularly if he continuse to win as he is with the debt ceiling.

If you say so!

I know I've supported Gingrich before and even though he's the smartest person running, his personal life and his temper have cost him too much. Even long time supporters no longer work with him.

You think Gingrich is the "smartest person" running?
Aaron, I like you, but that statement just cost you pretty much all credibility.

Says the woman who's never listened to another candidate. You should read some of his writings and watch some of his video's. He's utilized his Masters and PhD from Emory and proven time and again that he's often the smartest person in the room and that includes this years debates. He's Jimmy smart. It's just too bad he can't control his temper and hasn't made better personal decisions.

LOL! He is not Jimmy smart. He isn't even Michele Bachmann smart. She's nuts, but she's very bright. Gingrich is probably slightly above average in the intelligence department. I'd say just forget his "personal decisions" but what they show is a lack of integrity. He is a neoconservative version of John Edwards! In addition to his temper he lacks impulse control.
There was a time when I read a LOT of what Gingrich published. I left that train about a decade ago. You should hop off too!

I've hopped off the Gingrich train but not because his intelligence is above average. For me to believe that, mine would have to be as well. Either that or I would have to be blinded by bias.

Aaron wrote:I don't blame Palin for tucking tail and running as it was likely a once in a lifetime opportunity and she went from getting by to financial security for not only her but her children and grandchildren as well.

With that in mind, I've told my kids too many times that it is not how many times you get knocked down in life that matters, it's how many times you get back up that counts. In my opinion, Palin didn't get back up, she scurried away.

Character counts to the majority of Americans. As I said before, I'm not buying it.

That is a good point Aaron. However, one also has to know when to fight and when to walk away. Anyways, please understand I'm not saying she is the best candidate, because she isn't. what I am saying is when compared to the vast majority of fools in congress and the whitehouse, she is by far a better leader then they could ever hope to be.

Cato wrote:That is a good point Aaron. However, one also has to know when to fight and when to walk away. Anyways, please understand I'm not saying she is the best candidate, because she isn't. what I am saying is when compared to the vast majority of fools in congress and the whitehouse, she is by far a better leader then they could ever hope to be.

I understand what you're saying Cato and for the most part I agree with you including knowing when to fight and when to walk away. And in my opinion, she should have fought. She didn't. She took the easy out and cashed and in doing so displayed poor judgment.

That combined with the fact that unlike Bachmann, when she does screw up as she did with the Revere debacle, instead of saying Mea culpa and moving on, she feels the need to blame everyone but herself for her mistakes. The Revere incident is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. She screwed up big time but instead of admitting her mistake, she tried to rationalize her statement and then blamed everyone she could for her screw-up.

The one thing you said that I disagree with is when you referred to her as a leader. She's simply not one.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:That is a good point Aaron. However, one also has to know when to fight and when to walk away. Anyways, please understand I'm not saying she is the best candidate, because she isn't. what I am saying is when compared to the vast majority of fools in congress and the whitehouse, she is by far a better leader then they could ever hope to be.

I understand what you're saying Cato and for the most part I agree with you including knowing when to fight and when to walk away. And in my opinion, she should have fought. She didn't. She took the easy out and cashed and in doing so displayed poor judgment.

That combined with the fact that unlike Bachmann, when she does screw up as she did with the Revere debacle, instead of saying Mea culpa and moving on, she feels the need to blame everyone but herself for her mistakes. The Revere incident is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. She screwed up big time but instead of admitting her mistake, she tried to rationalize her statement and then blamed everyone she could for her screw-up.

The one thing you said that I disagree with is when you referred to her as a leader. She's simply not one.

I understand your view of Sarah Palin. Really, since I see no way she will be a viable candidate, I guess this is all conjecture.

I do agree she has made some mistakes and I agree that she would have done herself a favor by admitting to them and correcting herself. But all candidates make mistakes in their campaign and in their personal life.

As far as being a leader goes, I would prefer her to any of the so called "insider group" like Romney or Pawlenty. But that is my preference, since I see these guys as leftist lite.

To tell you the truth Aaron, I don't see anyone on the republican side that I can really get behind. I like Michelle Bachman and alot of what she says, but there is just something there that turns me off and I can't put my finger on what it is. I like Ron Paul, but his use of the earmark to rake in tax dollars for his district just doesn't sit well with me. I can't stand any of the insiders. Newt Gingrich lost me when he went to the midwest and defended government subsidies for ethanol. Romney is a republican in name only. Pawlenty is more of the same.

Obviously I'm still with Ron Paul. However, have you checked out Gary Johnson, Cato? If your apprehension about Paul is earmarks, perhaps Johnson is your guy.

Stephanie wrote:Obviously I'm still with Ron Paul. However, have you checked out Gary Johnson, Cato? If your apprehension about Paul is earmarks, perhaps Johnson is your guy.

I haven't yet, thanks for pointing him out. I like alot of what Ron Paul says, and I think he is a good man, but I just wish he had not used earmarks. It makes him look hypocritical.

I want to be clear about something. If Ron Paul was to get the nomination and would be the republican candidate, I would support him, monetarily, and I would work and vote for him. The same is true if Michelle Bachman got the nomination, or if Sarah Palin, or even Herman Cain were nominated. Any of these people would be far superior to what is in office now. On the other hand, I cannot with a clear conscience vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or Palwanty.