In our current poll, we are asking who you think will be the Republican Presidential Candidate. One person has voted for Sarah Palin and I was wondering if that person would comment on their rationale. Please make your comment after this posting.You can be anonymous or you can post your name. I just want to know if you would vote for her or hoping she will be so that President Obama can become re-elected. We are waiting to hear from you.
Now, let me say that I love how she seems to get under the skins of the Press and Democrats. Her ability to have the press follow her where ever she goes and to listen to her anytime she talks is unrivaled by any competitor. I believe she has made some mistakes in some of her publicity but anytime someone is doing things, there will be errors.
One can only imagine the disappointment the press had when they went through all the emails from her years as Alaska's Governor and found nothing. Obviously, it was all about the business of Alaska and nothing out of order. What a disappointment!
I also love her ability to relate to the common man. Yes, its folksy. Yes, its not what you normally see. But when she talks the average man or woman on the street understands what she is talking about. No twenty dollar words, but plain speaking.
Opponents think that she is dumb and that how can we elect someone who only went to normal colleges and did not a graduate of the Ivy League. It seems that in the past thirty or so years, we have elected a couple really smart people like Jimmy Carter (supposedly a nuclear engineer) and Bill Clinton (a Rhodes Scholar). Neither of these gentlemen will be viewed by history as great Presidents. While Ronald Reagan who was an "actor" and did not graduate from a great college will be one of the best Presidents. Harry Truman, arguably a great president, also did not graduate from a prestigious school.
My point is that education does not necessarily make a wise man. Common sense and knowing what you stand for does. Those elements were part of the nature of both Truman and Reagan. I think it is also shared by Sarah Palin. She is not flowery, but she knows what she stands for.
Has she made mistakes in speaking? Sure but do not all of those who are running for the White House? Didn't Obama say there were 57 states? So let's give Sarah a fair hearing and then decide if she has the mettle to be President.
That's just my opinion, I would like to hear yours.
Now, let me say that I love how she seems to get under the skins of the Press and Democrats. Her ability to have the press follow her where ever she goes and to listen to her anytime she talks is unrivaled by any competitor. I believe she has made some mistakes in some of her publicity but anytime someone is doing things, there will be errors.
One can only imagine the disappointment the press had when they went through all the emails from her years as Alaska's Governor and found nothing. Obviously, it was all about the business of Alaska and nothing out of order. What a disappointment!
I also love her ability to relate to the common man. Yes, its folksy. Yes, its not what you normally see. But when she talks the average man or woman on the street understands what she is talking about. No twenty dollar words, but plain speaking.
Opponents think that she is dumb and that how can we elect someone who only went to normal colleges and did not a graduate of the Ivy League. It seems that in the past thirty or so years, we have elected a couple really smart people like Jimmy Carter (supposedly a nuclear engineer) and Bill Clinton (a Rhodes Scholar). Neither of these gentlemen will be viewed by history as great Presidents. While Ronald Reagan who was an "actor" and did not graduate from a great college will be one of the best Presidents. Harry Truman, arguably a great president, also did not graduate from a prestigious school.
My point is that education does not necessarily make a wise man. Common sense and knowing what you stand for does. Those elements were part of the nature of both Truman and Reagan. I think it is also shared by Sarah Palin. She is not flowery, but she knows what she stands for.
Has she made mistakes in speaking? Sure but do not all of those who are running for the White House? Didn't Obama say there were 57 states? So let's give Sarah a fair hearing and then decide if she has the mettle to be President.
That's just my opinion, I would like to hear yours.
Zogby just did a poll of likely Republican primary voters.
ReplyDeleteBachmann won with 24% and Romney/Cain tied for second with 15%. My boy Ron Paul was right behind them at 13%.
If Palin stays out of it, Bachman could win. How about that?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314245#ixzz1Q4Ro5Dux
--David
Cast your vote and you could win an Alaskan fishing trip http://adf.ly/1tJCE
ReplyDeleteDavid, I agree with other Republican voters who were surveyed. I was a Romney supporter in 2008, but he ran a miserable campaign in which he changed the stance on some very important issues such as right to life. I want someone who has their own set of values which have become part of him/her through living life. Someone Romney's age should not be changing his opinion on important issues. It should have been settled in his mind.
ReplyDeleteFour years ago or even today, I have no problem with his religion as I think that is his business. I was impressed with his business accume as well as what he did with the Olympics.
If I was to handicap the race today, Romney would not be the winner. I have no favorite yet, as I want to see more of the debates and more of the campaign.
I can tell from your strong views on the First and Fourth Amendment that you have a Libertarian streak. Ron Paul is the only real Libertarian in this race. Is it just his opposition to the wars and U.S. military policy that will keep you from supporting him? Or is there more?
ReplyDelete--David
I admire Dr.Paul for his adherance to his opinions. And yes, there are a lot of Libertarian ideas that appeal to me, however, I am pro military and believe in a strong defense. On the other hand, I think there are many places where we have troops i.e. Germany that we do not need them anymore. The Russian threat is not what it was during the cold war. So I am sort of conflicted as I do not see either of the primary parties as doing what is best for the country.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a blog a year ago or so that it was time for a new party. One that more reflects the attitudes of ordinary americans. Would you agree with that?
If you just look at public opinion polls on the major issues, it is clear that the politicians are responding to Wall Street instead of Main Street. It is very hard for a third party to compete in this system, because it now takes millions of dollars to run a national campaign. Guys like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader running as third-party candidates have no chance. What we really need is major campaign finance reform and term limits on Congress. The incumbents would have to vote against their own self-interest to enact the kinds of legislation that would be effective. Unfortunately, I think that is a precondition for creating more political parties such as we see in other countries.
ReplyDeleteOn Ron Paul, I wouldn't say he is opposed to strong defense. I think it more a matter of foreign policy. Can you honestly say that our foreign policy since 9-11 has been working well?
--David
It is true that a third party has a very hard time because the two parties have structured ths system against third parties. Getting a small percentage of votes hurts the party from which the candidate came from. For example, Ross Perot helped re-elect Clinton even though Ross was right on a lot of things.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the current legislators are interested in one thing and one thing only--re-election. If they were interested in the future of the United States, we would have had a budget that would have prevented the massive debt that we are in now. It is a disgrace that the government can pass the largest budget buster--healthcare and not pass a budget.
As far as foreign policy since 9/11, I had no problem going after al queda in Afganistan but was worried about our attack of Iraq as I did not find the rationale solid. There had been no attack of the US. Of course, I am against Libya for the same reason and I fear an expansion of our attacks anytime there are people at "risk." The trouble the government can define risk anyway they desire. As I do not trust my government! Any ruling body that believes it can spend my money better than I, is bad.
Sounds to me as if your preferred foreign policy is closer to Ron Paul's than you think. Our foreign policy should be self-defense, not injection of military power all over the world. If elected, Ron Paul would stop all these wars and get our troops/bases out of places like Germany and Japan. This would save hundreds of billions of dollars that could be spent on something useful -- like infrastructure and education.
ReplyDelete--David
On those two points, I agree with Dr. Paul, however, we spend more on education than most countries around the world and get worse results. Also, our infrastructure is decaying due to poor construction about which I have written before. We spend money on the flash and not substance.
ReplyDeleteI want our budget balanced in good times (war times or times of financial crisis could be different) with a budget. Not having a national budget for a couple years is criminal.
The CBO just released their new study of federal debt. I would be very interested in your comments on their Summary Figure 1., which compares Extended-Baseline Scenario the their Alternative Fiscal Scenario.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf
--David
What is the world preparing for? Stonefish are deadly creatures that cannot be seen till they move. They lurch deep in the ocean floor and if encountered the poisonous needle can inflict a fatal blow. There is a power that goes unnoticed in the economy today. We will be hit swiftly and fatally. Americansurvivalbible.com
ReplyDeleteLast week the 5-year Treasury note was actually yielding below the core inflation rate of 1.5%. The bond market analysts say the market is already pricing in deflation. And this comes right after the Fed did its QE2 to try to stall off deflation! In short, until consumer demand returns, core inflation is not a problem.
ReplyDeleteNow, if we can just get the derivative speculators to stop manipulating oil prices and food prices....
The problem with the inflation numbers being promoted by the Administration and Bernacke is they leave out a couple vital items which, while are volitle (the reason they are not in the current rendition of the CPI) are vital to every family in the United States. The two commodities not included in the CPI--gas and food. We have inflation but the government cannot show it because that would drive up the cost of government borrowing which would make our enonomic situation even worse.
ReplyDeleteRemember the old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Our economy is being mismanaged and we the public are being dooped. I am sure those in the know,have a good laugh at our expense.