The Palin Doctrine :)

[Dorian Gray]

You left out something that I just MENTIONED so it is an OBVIOUS LIE BY OMISSION:

In Feb she said NATO and our allies should establish the no-fly zone. NOT AMERICA. NATO AND OUR ALLIES. So Palin's doctrine is that other people should be in charge of the no-fly zone over Libya, but if Q is still in power, America has failed??

Her doctrine isn't 'say what I think everyone wants to hear', but 'say what makes no sense'? Ah, I stand corrected. However, having an opinion on a single issue does not constitute a doctrine, else my Dear Abby analogy applies.

By the way, Rule 12 to you too.

 

[mhaze]

Only if some said so, and that concept of there being a Dear Abby Doctrine propagated in popular culture.

Oh, gosh wrong I was.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

You left out something your fellow progressive just MENTIONED so it is an OBVIOUS LIE BY OMISSION:

....and Qaddafi is still in power? Is that a failure on our part?
Palin: America will have failed.

I'm okay with Gaspode's edit, which leaves intact the logical fallacy propagandic method by Dorian of "lie by omission", and subtracts other content which may have seemed a bit of an ad hominem attack on Dorian.

There is no way, though to NOT use the phrase "Lie by Omission", as that is the dictionary definition of what was done by Dorian.

 

[Biscuit]

That has something to do with whether there is a "Palin Doctrine"?

There is a phrase that is spelled "palin Doctrine" that has been googled a whole bunch but none of the results of that search reveal any content.

 

[mhaze]

There is a phrase that is spelled "palin Doctrine" that has been googled a whole bunch but none of the results of that search reveal any content.

I can see where this would be quite frustrating, while not agreeing with the results of your googleFU.

Just like it is quite worrisome, having to fret over whether and what if Palin runs for some political office all the time. Rats! She just keeps silent about it.

It's just not fair, is it?

Think of all the progressive energy that's wasted worrying about Palin. And now there's this darn, mysterious "Palin Doctrine" we progressives can't find out enough about it to expose it for the conservative lie that we know in our shallow hearts, mean spirits, vapid minds and empty suits it must be.

What to do, what to do, what to do...



Hey...just kidding....

 

[Biscuit]

I can see where this would be quite frustrating, while not agreeing with the results of your googleFU.

Just like it is quite worrisome, having to fret over whether and what if Palin runs for some political office all the time. Rats! She just keeps silent about it.

It's just not fair, is it?

Think of all the progressive energy that's wasted worrying about Palin. And now there's this darn, mysterious "Palin Doctrine" we progressives can't find out enough about it to expose it for the conservative lie that we know in our shallow hearts, mean spirits, vapid minds and empty suits it must be.

What to do, what to do, what to do...



Hey...just kidding....

When you find out what it is please let us know. In the mean time I need to go fill my empty suits and shallow hearts with some spirits. In other words I will be at the bar not holding my breath.

 

[bikerdruid]

mhaze??
are you going to answer my question?

 

[mhaze]

mhaze??
are you going to answer my question?

No, because I don't know the answer. With Obaby, we saw clearly the creation of a media persona which was advertised, promoted, and elected. That's a first in US history, as far as I am aware.

Several of the possible Republican candidates now running are similarly, media personalities. Palin, Huckaby, Trump...for example. They do not have these contrived artificial personas, of course. But could that be a liability?

So the question you asked, which is more of practical qualifications, does not address what the American people want, and what they will elect. What they did elect last time, the manufactured persona, does not bode well for what they may elect next time.

Generally speaking, when the front man is weak or ineffectual, the power vacuum is filled by those "behind the throne".

Should then, the person in the POTUS slot be simply a pretty face, a nice voice, sort of someone who makes people feel good when they talk? Palin qualifies for that, although in so doing she greatly aggravates the rabid left and or the cultural elite. One argument is that this is the primary job of the POTUS, the "bully pulpit" and armchair fireside talks.

Another perspective is the often said quip "First rate people hire first rate people, second rate people hire third rate people". Who would Palin hire? To answer that accurately, you'd have to look at her history as Governor of Alaska. There are no negatives there, she hired good people...

A general comment I'd make is that ex Governors, having management experience tend to do better than lawyers with Senate experience, a notable exception being Carter.

After Carter II <<Obama>>, people will likely take anybody else. It will be quite interesting to see how these various wannabes do, and Palin has not announced anything so this is just pure fantasy.

But I could answer your question in the following way: I'd select her over Romney, who is just another old style big government socialist republican. So would a lot of people.

But you will not see a real discussion on this question on JREF, because every Palin thread is a politicized, bash-and-lie about Palin, thread. That goes back to 2008, and it is no different now. Quite curious, really...there's sort of a morose fascination with Palin by the left which I don't share and .... I don't know any conservatives who share it.

 

[bikerdruid]

No, because I don't know the answer.

thank you for the honest answer. it's pretty tough to argue with anything you have said in this post.
i promise, i wouldn't'a made fun of an affirmative response, either.
i just wanted to know. now i do.

 

[mhaze]

thank you for the honest answer. it's pretty tough to argue with anything you have said in this post.
i promise, i wouldn't'a made fun of an affirmative response, either.
i just wanted to know. now i do.

Sure, no problem. NOW back to mindless bantering.

 

[leftysergeant]

I don't think there is any such thing as a "Palin doctrine." Her attention span is too short.

 

[Tricky]

Oh dear. Another defector and another tell-all book. If Palin taught us anything, it is "screw them all and write a book". It worked to fill up her bank account. She should be proud that so many of her associates and underlings learned from her what is important.