Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
"The grind of a campaign may no longer appeal to her. Neither might the pay cut. I get all that. But justifying a decision not to run for president by insisting that she’s better than the process – that she’s too “rogue,” too “independent,” and too much of a “maverick” to be constrained by a campaign and the office of the presidency – is embarrassing. It also reveals, I think, a deep-seated insecurity. Ms. Palin knows full well she wouldn’t do well running for president (give her points for self-awareness), but she feels the need to try to place a cloak of virtue around herself to explain it," - Pete Wehner in a harmonic convergence with Jon Stewart.
Palin Should Be More Honest About Her Reasons For Not Running
Where to begin?
How about with the observation that the argument that titles like president/presidential candidate shackles a person just doesn’t hold together. Ms. Palin complains that a run for the presidency would “prohibit” her from getting her message out because “handlers” would “shape me and … force my message to be” what others would want it to be.
But where is it written in stone that a candidate has to accede to the wishes of her “handlers”? Self-confident candidates – and I’ve known a few in my time — would simply ignore advice that they consider limiting. Indeed, one of the great opportunities afforded to those running for president is to inject certain issues into the public conversation and to get people to debate solutions to our challenges (think Ronald Reagan and supply side economics). Having worked in the White House, I can report to Ms. Palin that, based on my observations, the title “president” is not limiting or shackling in the least. President Lincoln didn’t find it so. He was actually able to advance some fairly significant ideas during both his various candidacies and his presidency. The presidency, in fact, allows an individual to shape history in a way that few others can ever hope to experience.
That should also be said of Romney in some fashion in that he's the one that spewed a short time ago that corporations are people. I think it was one of his stump speeches just before the Iowa straw poll.
There is so much stunned & stupid being said, it becomes hard to keep track of where it happened!! If we retained it all in 'our' brain, it would be on overflow and wasting far too much brain space!!
Where can we buy these?
ReplyDeleteWell now, isn't THAT special. I believe they may have something there.
ReplyDeleteLove it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they need to give corporations drug tests before they get government welfare tax breaks.
ReplyDeleteSarah..... This is a "September to remember".
ReplyDeleteAs Glen Rice said, I call her Timex, because she takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
I agree that seems like a fair test..
ReplyDeletePerfect!
ReplyDeleteLet's start a list!
ReplyDelete"The grind of a campaign may no longer appeal to her. Neither might the pay cut. I get all that. But justifying a decision not to run for president by insisting that she’s better than the process – that she’s too “rogue,” too “independent,” and too much of a “maverick” to be constrained by a campaign and the office of the presidency – is embarrassing. It also reveals, I think, a deep-seated insecurity. Ms. Palin knows full well she wouldn’t do well running for president (give her points for self-awareness), but she feels the need to try to place a cloak of virtue around herself to explain it," - Pete Wehner in a harmonic convergence with Jon Stewart.
ReplyDeletehttp://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/yglesi.html
Palin Should Be More Honest About Her Reasons For Not Running
Where to begin?
How about with the observation that the argument that titles like president/presidential candidate shackles a person just doesn’t hold together. Ms. Palin complains that a run for the presidency would “prohibit” her from getting her message out because “handlers” would “shape me and … force my message to be” what others would want it to be.
But where is it written in stone that a candidate has to accede to the wishes of her “handlers”? Self-confident candidates – and I’ve known a few in my time — would simply ignore advice that they consider limiting. Indeed, one of the great opportunities afforded to those running for president is to inject certain issues into the public conversation and to get people to debate solutions to our challenges (think Ronald Reagan and supply side economics). Having worked in the White House, I can report to Ms. Palin that, based on my observations, the title “president” is not limiting or shackling in the least. President Lincoln didn’t find it so. He was actually able to advance some fairly significant ideas during both his various candidacies and his presidency. The presidency, in fact, allows an individual to shape history in a way that few others can ever hope to experience.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/29/palin-running-presidency-honesty/#more-769690
Corporations are people - they're just not loyal American citizens.
ReplyDeleteCorporations are people - evil, hateful, heartless people.
Corporations are people - so were slaveowners.
I want a bumpersticker saying this!!
ReplyDeleteNo, he gives them tax breaks at the cost of his citizens safety and comfort.
ReplyDeleteThat should also be said of Romney in some fashion in that he's the one that spewed a short time ago that corporations are people. I think it was one of his stump speeches just before the Iowa straw poll.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much stunned & stupid being said, it becomes hard to keep track of where it happened!! If we retained it all in 'our' brain, it would be on overflow and wasting far too much brain space!!
Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant!
ReplyDeleteLOVE IT!!
ReplyDeleteT
OMG!
ReplyDeleteSeriously genius!
Everyone make sure your Corporation gets it's flu shot! Gonna be a rough winter, ya know!