Pamela Geller, WND Commentary: Palin documentary: 2012 game changer

Poosh,
“You cannot destroy the perception the media have created”
So if the media creates a false impression of any individual they don’t like, essentially lying to the public then that is acceptable to you? So in essence you have zero backbone. If someone lies about you at work and gets you fired for it then you just walk away? If someone rapes you its your fault? No, its the media that’s damaged goods, not Sarah Palin.

In order to beat them at their own game you first must know the game they are playing. I suggest reading Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals and get a firm grip on the concepts. This is what they do and how they do it. Understand that and you will know never to underestimate someone like Palin.
I think in the past few years since she left the Alaska Governor’s office she has a pretty good handle on how the media fixate on her. She has already made them look foolish on her bus tour so I’m sure she has more up her sleeve. If she is to be successful she must learn to bypass the media and speak directly to Americans. This is what Ronald Reagan did back in the 80s and why he won a second term.

“However, voters feel strongest that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, is not qualified. Twenty-three percent (23%) say the former Alaska governor is qualified to serve as the nation’s chief executive, but 63% say she is not qualified. Palin is the best-known of the Republicans with just 15% undecided about her.”-Rasmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/49_see_romney_as_qualified_to_be_president_less_confident_of_other_gop_candidates
The problem here is that the Left has done its mischief, and politics is about perception. The reality is that Sarah Palin had been a very effective Gov. of Alaska-but that will not matter until the public’s perception of her comes into line with reality. That will take time. Right now, I think her nomination would be a catastrophe.
My hunch is that Romney will be the nominees, with Huckleberry or Michelle Bachmann as VP candidate. But the presidential nominee and VP candidate could be “dark horse” candidates with a lot of experience in foreign policy and an understanding of our economic dilemma. (I sure hope Christie is not nominated. He looks like Napoleon the pig from animal farm. The Left will savage him, too.)
Obama won in 2008 because many voters thought it “cool” to vote for him on the basis of race. A good portion of the public votes on emotion, and not issues. They will ignore issues. For example: Obama voters did not care that he broke his campaign “change you can believe in” promise to take only public financing if nominated.)
People bought a lot of crap, and the media was hostile to McCain in 2008. However, the president is not “cool” anymore, and the economy is likely to go into a double dip.
(A neighbor (a real dope) told me she was voting for Obama in 2008 because “he can speak-unlike Bush.” I told her: “Yeah, Hitler could speak, too. Would you vote for Hitler or Bush on that basis?” Her mouth dropped open (BTW-she’s Jewish). It’s useless to appeal to reason with such people, and she HATES Sarah Palin. I rest my case.)
I think Sarah Palin would be a good president. But she is going to have to undo the damage done to her. This movie might be a start in that direction.

<3 Andrew Breitbart!

I’ve come to the conclusion that reason is incompatible with politics.
Your comparison (B. Humpty Dumpty and Mitt Frankenstein) fits. Romney will not break-up the 6-7 banks that are at the heart of our “Too Big to fail 2” risk. Dodd-Frank institutionalized that. That will not change until the next financial crisis comes.
There might be a change in foreign policy with Romney. That’s all. That will be as good as it gets.
But nothing ever goes as planned, and events could end up with some outsider (maybe Bolton) who has foreign policy experience, and who understands our economic problems, getting the nomination. (It’s not likely, but not impossible. Jimmy Carter (“Jimmy who?”) started out with 2% in the polls in 1975-1976 and was nominated and elected president in 1976.)
The late Col. Hackworth used to refer to “the fog of war.”
It is said that “war is politics my another means.” I think the opposite is also true: politics is war by other means. Things can get funky in politics and war.

In politics, the president is given credit it for or blame for “the economy.” In both cases the cartoon is in play when it comes to reality.
However, the current administration and Democrats (particularly re health care) has created uncertainty: and people do not like confusion in matters of business. (“It’s the uncertainty, stupid.”)The so-called “health care reform” is a disaster for businesses in terms of certainty and uncertainty. This, more than anything else, is going to prolong our economic downturn.
Who is advising the president? The real issue was the concentrated nature of our banking system and the breakdown of the firewall between investment banking and commercial banking in the aftermath of the repeal of the glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Dodd-Frank institutionalized all that created the crisis.
Why did the president spend a year on “health care reform”? Obama has to be smart enough to know now that the guys who are at the heart of the problem (Big Finance-including his “supporter” Jamie Dimon) sent him on a wild goose chase.