Social Question

Val123's avatar

Is there anyone out there who actually takes Sarah Palin seriously?

Asked by Val123 (12684points) February 9th, 2010

She keeps popping up in the news like she has something “important” to say…..?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

43 Answers

tedibear's avatar

I take it you didn’t see any of the Tea Party meeting/convention/gathering? There are many people who take her seriously. <shudders>

jfos's avatar

Reassess your question after watching this.

Val123's avatar

@jfos Lol! Thanks!

TheJoker's avatar

Not really, she’s basically just an angry Smurf.

JLeslie's avatar

Lots of people love her. I think if you are someone who generally does not watch politics or balanced news programs about current issues and politics, like Meet The Press and This Week, and happen to live in a right wing oriented community where all you might hear about issues facing America are sound bite type of phrases, you can get behind her.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Sadly, Yes….

CMaz's avatar

I do.

But, she does make it easy to be attacked. Not for any reason, just her quirky manor.

If you actually listen to her and like myself dig that quirky attitude. You will see she is right on. And remember, no one is perfect.

Qingu's avatar

What is she right on about?

Nonexistent death panels? The need to declare war on Iran? The importance of simultaneously reducing the deficit and lowering taxes?

CMaz's avatar

Not pushing my agenda. Just answered a question.


Judi's avatar

I was checking facebook the other day and the news feed said a good friend of mine “Becam a fan of Sara Palin” I had to resist the temptation to reply “Oh Becky Ugggggg”

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

yeah, a flutherer named CaptainHarley.

JLeslie's avatar

I actually like her if she was the one doing the interviewing, and not the one who is supposedly an expert. I can see her as a talk show host, but not on politics only, more like every day mom stuff, interviewing celebraties, etc. It would be interesting to see her actually spend time with people from many walks of life, to expand her horizons. I think she is too narrow and isolated, her lack of experience lets her believe what she does, just like her followers. And, unfortunately she does not seem to want to seek information about the world from politics to culture to innovation, this is my biggest gripe about her.

When she is not trying to impress people, not worrying about making mistakes that might come back and bite her as someone in politics, she can be charming. Did you see her talking about abstinence and her daughter on Oprah, and towards the end she kind of candidly turned to her daughter and asked, “so if your not going to have sex until you are married now, do you think that will cause you to marry younger?”

I think maybe people who dislike her on the liberal side wait for her to say something stupid and that is all we see; but the people who like her, see her, and aren’t listening much to what she is saying. If that makes sense.

Maybe she could have real conversations if she could really just sit back and be herself, but she is too power-hungy it seems. She is pretty, has a happy energy about her, and although she speaks with some strange jargon, she is easily understood. I really think seeking political power is her achilles heel as an individual.

Val123's avatar

@JLeslie GA! As a person I don’t have a problem with her. I actually appreciate her dedication and focus on her family (‘magine that!) But in politics? I don’t think so! If someone is going to be literally running and controlling my life, the lives of everyone in t he country, I feel that their focus needs to be on me, the country first, and family second (which is why I could never get into politics!) I also agree…she can be personable and charming, and would make a good talk show host, especially on women’s issues.

ucme's avatar

Her would be assassin?

mattbrowne's avatar

Unfortunately, yes. Check out the ratings of her book

There are 1,172 reviews and the distribution is unusual

5 star: 750
4 star: 86
3 star: 31
2 star: 31
1 star: 274

When you look at the most common tags you’ll get this:

dumb and dumber (925)
keeping america stupid (747)
quitter (527)
conservative (484)
autobiography (402)
narcissistic personality disorder (370)
smart (362)

Ron_C's avatar

Palin is a real whore. She apparently, has no real convictions, isn’t very intelligent, and will do anything for money and power. She left her job as governor because she found more lucrative opportunities in the lower 48.

She apparently will say and do anything to gain what she seeks. She was brought into politics in a blatant attempt to ruin the campaign of McCain because he was too liberal for the neo-cons to accept but too public a figure to deliberately defame. Making her the vice-presidential candidate was truly a masterful way to get rid of McCain and shift the blame for this country’s disaster to the Democrats. I can see Karl Rove’s finger prints all over this.

Since she is a complete opportunist, she jumped into a role, in which she is supremely unqualified, to gain money and power. I think she now believes she deserves a role in national government and some people are dumb enough to agree.

I suspect she will attempt another run for national office and she would be a perfect candidate to complete the corporate take over of the country. She has no principles and is easily manipulated. Sort of a Bush in skirts.

Val123's avatar

@Ron_C McCain had the final say so on whether to accept her candidacy. It wasn’t forced on him. He obviously made a disastrous choice. Which may have been a harbinger of how his presidency would have been run, had he won….

JLeslie's avatar

I’m betting McCain was convinced by his advisors that he had to go with someone who represented the far right. From what I understand the rumors were true and he wanted Leiberman, but they feared losing the Republican base. Now, I don’t understand why they worried about this, because who was the right wing going to vote for Obama? I guess maybe they just would not have come out to vote, but if he had went with Lieberman he might have been able to rack up some votes from the indepedents and moderates. And, just to rant a little more, I wish the Republicans would get out of their heads that the far right bible belt are their base; this hurts them in my opinion.

Look, I live in the south, and I do not agree with southern Democrats or southern Republicans. The southern Democrat is still, generally speaking, too religious and too in favor of the government being in our personal lives for my taste. The southern Democrats I know are against gay marriage, think abortion is immoral, etc, they are aligned with the Republican far right on social issues a lot of the time. But, they are Democrats either because they are black, or because their families have been Democrats since the beginning of time.

Interesting that Palin is talking to Tea Party people. From what I understand this movement was started by the Libertarians, which fiscally are what Republicans used to stand for, so Republicans have joined in somewhat. This makes sense to me up north. But, libertarians are for smaller government period; including leaving abortion up to the woman herself, and they don’t care if a man wants to spend the rest of his life married to another man, from what I understand. I think that sounds a lot like a Northern Republican from back before the Reagan years, or many Independents, basically socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

CMaz's avatar

McCain and Pailen were told to play along. They knew from the start that they were not going to win. That is why Palin was not taking the election that serious.

There was a back room decision, that Obama was going to win. Way before the election.

Val123's avatar

@JLeslie You said, “I’m betting McCain was convinced by his advisers” And that adds to my point. As president, would he have continued to allow himself to be convinced by bad advisors?

JLeslie's avatar

@Val123 Probably to some extent, but generally I think of McCain as sticking up for what he believes in, and willing to go against the party at times. All presidents listen to their advisors to somewhat I would say. Look, Mitt Romney also changed himself once he ran for national office, pissed me off. Everyone is sitting around in awe that Scott Brown, Republican, was elected to the senate in Massachussets, but blue CT had a Republican governor not too long ago, which goes back to what I was saying Southern Republicans vs. Northern ones.

Ron_C's avatar

I felt that I had a personal connection to McCain. I was first disappointed when he embraced Bush, literally and figuratively. Then when he accepted Palin as his running mate, it became apparent that he was not serious in is campaign. I can’t help but to see Karl Rove behind this.

I think the conservatives knew that they couldn’t win so they purposely blew the election and switched to a policy to discredit Obama. Unfortunately, I can see that they will probably be successful and may end up winning the next election. My fellow American voters are extremely stupid.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C What do you mean by I think the conservatives knew that they couldn’t win so they purposely blew the election That explains Palin you mean? How?

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie after eight years of Bush, voters could clearly see the failure of the neoconservative, corporate philosophy. Our country was robbed, raped, and murdered. The Republicans selected their least conservative candidate to run. All neocons and most real conservatives hated him for being too liberal. If they really wanted to win, they would have picked Ron Paul, a true conservative. The problem is that they would have had to take the responsibility for the state of the Union. It was better for them to shirk responsibility and turn it over to the democrats for a term. That way, the republican party has the best of both worlds. They could blame the democrats for the countries problems and position themselves as saviours in the next election. All they have to do for the next couple years is block any democratic initiatives. In that they have been very successful.

To neocons, the point of all of this is to regain power. They don’t really care about the country, just their power base.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C Oh, I see now what you meant. I was saying during the election that I almost hope the Republicans win, because the country was in such a mess, and then maybe Hillary could get another chance.

Even with Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts, people make it seem like Dems muct be very upset, but I think they secretly are happy, because it take sthe heat off, now they don’t have 60, so when things don’t pass it is not their fault.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie the big problem is that the democrats just don’t know how to wield the power they have. Will Rogers once said that he isn’t a member of an political organization, “I’m a democrat”. It is a typical herd of cats with no strong leaders. Of course, that’s why I joined the party. I don’t want a fascist leader. Unfortunately, it looks like we need a fascist to get anything done.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C For me, I think I should stop watching and talking about politics for the next 6 years probably. I do not agree with Obama on many things, if a Republican gets in next, I probably won’t agree with them, unless the Republicans actually move more center, mor elike a Scott Brown, Bloomberg, Romney (when he was governor before running for national office) even Juliani type.

This is the first time I have ever felt like a third party might really be able to make some serious headway.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie Juliani creepy, before 9–11 he was on his way out, everyone in New York hated him for screwing up the city. What the crisis did do was show that even a fool can be brave and rise to the occasion, for that I commend him. Since then, however, every conversation he has bends back to 9–11 because without that one grand event, he is an empty suit.

As for not talking about politics for the next six years, that is a bad move. It only allows more room for the right and left noise machines. Usually, the truth lies between the extremes, now, however, I’m not even sure what the question is.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C I guess I just meant Republicans who do not worry as much about making the far right happy.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie I agree that we need a new party but the tea party doesn’t seem to benefit anyone. They are so inclusive that they embrace racists, neo-cons, and militia groups. I am basically a libertarian, progressive and believe that there is a place for the government to “level the playing field”. I haven’t seen a party where I fit.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C I would say if the Republicans were what they seemingly were supposed to be, less government and individual rights and freedoms, they would effectively be the new third party at this point and time. It would be halfway to Libertarian. But, they are not that at all, ESPECIALLY what they call the base of the party right now. Then I am back to north and south. Looking back on the last 40 years, I think Clinton was the closest to the middle/libertarian we have seen. Maybe I am wrong. He shrank government spending, liberal on social issues, he is the exception that proves the rule, I am amazed he came out of Arkansas.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie the republicans, under Bush, vastly increased the government while making is less effective. To top it off they gave us the Patriot Act, the biggest blow to our freedom since we parted from England. It seems that they believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to form a fascist government.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C Like I said, Republicans before Reagan. I never understood the Patriot Act. Couldn’t we already tap phones, and watch people if there was cause with a court order? Why did we need more than that? I really think it is a marketing scam. People believe these measures make them safer, or at least the people who drink the Kool Aid, and so they get all terrified when the other party is in, makes them more loyal. Fear is an amazing emotion, it controls people.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie I think that it was Franklin that said “those that would trade freedom for security deserve neither”. I remember being labeled as unpatriotic for not supporting the war in Iraq and not supporting the people that gave us the patriot act. What dismays me is that it has not yet been repealed. I also don’t favor military tribunals, torture, and the genocide we are ignoring in the Sudan. I am very disappointed in Obama and has stopped all contributions to the democratic party.

I want term limits, the end of filibusters in the Senate, eliminating the electoral college, end of the Regan tax cut, end of the secret budget for the CIA and national security agency, and want a “sunshine law” for all congressional meetings.

In other words, I want the restoration of democracy in the U.S. and all incumbents replaced.

I also demand that all lobbist activities be revealed and a ban on the presence of lobbists from all congressional law making sessions. Accepting a bill written by a lobbist should require immediate impeachment.

Is that too much to ask?

jfos's avatar

@Ron_C Here’s to eliminating the electoral college!

Val123's avatar

@jfos Fa’rill.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C I want to get rid of the electoral college also. I want my vote to count no matter what state I live in and it doesn’t. I want term limits also, although, I am ok with running again after a break. Obama was never my pick (although in the end I voted for him, but not in the primaries) so I am not dissapointed, I feel like he is pretty much what I expected.

I have a question about the filibuster, has anyone actually done it lately?

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie I think that it has been used about 39 times in this session of congress. One was for a blanket filibuster against low level nominations for necessary government offices. Ironically, the rule have been changed so that you only have to say that you are filibustering, the senator doesn’t have to talk or even be present. In addition, they can put holds on legislation and appointments anonymously. We now have a minority dominating the majority for the sole purposes of killing the presidency. It is really a disgusting situation. The right cares about nothing it’s only goal is to regain power.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C So they don’t have to stand for 20 hours anymore? Or, whatever the rule was?

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie the way I understand it is that all you have to do is register a filibuster and progress on the disputed law is halted until either 60 senators vote for cloture, the law dies on the floor, or the objecting minority group decides to stop. It is amazingly undemocratic. Of course Congress has long been against democracy and in favor of oligarchy.

I think the senate should be abolished along with the electoral college. They are just a reminant of aristocratic rule and are now an arm of those that consider themselves the Elite.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C Wow. I have never thought about getting rid of the senate; my gut reaction is it makes me nervous. I think of the senate as being a part of our system of checks and balances. I think of the electoral college as denying me my vote. Less important, but still related the electoral map, in this day of media, is deceptive, influencing Americans to think entire states think one way.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie think about it. When the Senate was first conceived it was an analog to the House of Lords and the Senate was appointed rather than elected. Its function is to oversee the laws that the rabble in the House try to make. I believe the senate exists because the early founders didn’t believe that the common man was intelligent enough to actually run the country. Of course, looking at the NeoCons, maybe they were right.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C I am going to think about it. Thanks.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther