Palin this week

[longeyes]

Gravitas is the nice, intellectual word; the correct word is...ruthlessness.  If we don't recognize that we are war, a war for our very existence, and that losing is not an option, we will defeat ourselves with misplaced and misguided "compassion" and self-deceiving gentility.  The Republicans continue to behave as if America were a social club built around privilege and good sportsmanship while the other side realizes we are in what comes down to a class struggle and a philosophical war to the death.

We have, at most, two elections to save suffrage itself, and I for one am not that optimistic, given the cultural and demographic realities, which an amnesty next year could plausibly impact by 2012, that this is very realistic any more.  We're counting on "independents," but I'd don't see that many independents or, for that matter, conservatives sufficiently up in arms about what's being done to them and their futures.

[Perd Hapley]

Gravitas is the nice, intellectual word; the correct word is...ruthlessness.

Not at all.  "Gravitas" means that a candidate is seen as a sober and experienced statesman.  Or more literally, that he's a heavyweight.

I agree with the rest of your first paragraph, however. 

[longeyes]

Gravitas is a lovely word.  I've used it myself.  :)

However, I think we err if we get too cerebral about all this.  What's at stake, as I see it, isn't just being relegated to a minority party, perhaps permanently, but outright losing our civil liberties.  When I say we need ruthlessness I mean we need to focus not on "ruth" but on victory.

I believe in the end our chances for turning the tide will not come from our crop of political representatives, too many of whom are already compromised or corrupted, but from the people themselves.  

[roo_ster]

To those with sufficient gravitas, ruthlessness is an option to be used when called for.

[longeyes]

Hear, hear.

[Ben]

So Chris Mathews and Norah O'Donnell of MSNBC reported that the crowds going to Palin's book signing were 100% white and the atmosphere was "tribal".

Michelle Malkin has an interesting article up about that. Be sure to scroll down to the demographics chart and take a look at Keith Olberman's audience.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/23/the-indelible-whiteness-of-msnbc/

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Reagan didn't have any gravitas, either.  He was just a hack movie actor who told amusing uplifting little stories and smiled well.  Yet I'd take a guy like him again in a heartbeat.

[longeyes]

Actually, Reagan did have "gravitas," but gravitas isn't the be-all and end-all.  Sometimes you need the qualities of a Patton or a MacArthur or a Truman.

In the case of an Obama let us not confuse a sonorous baritone with gravitas. 

[roo_ster]

Reagan didn't have any gravitas, either.  He was just a hack movie actor who told amusing uplifting little stories and smiled well.  Yet I'd take a guy like him again in a heartbeat.

I suspect you never read his writings from the 1960s and 1970s.  Well-reasoned and well-written stuff.

He also kept the commies from taking over the Screen Actors Guild when he was SAG president and was Gov of California.

EVERY Republican to run for POTUS is automatically painted as stupid by the MSM.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've read Reagan's stuff.  Listened to a bunch of his speeches, too.  He was well reasoned and sensible.  That doesn't mean he had gravitas.

I like Reagan.  He's one of the best Presidents we've had.  It's simply that Reagan's strengths ran more towards charisma than a hard-hitting, heavyweight persona.  He was more amiable than serious and severe.  This is a good thing.  I really don't think gravitas is what anyone needs to be a successful President.  

Barry sure doesn't have gravitas, he's the epitome of empty-suit, non-accomplishment nothingness.  Yet he's certainly proving effective (though not necessarily in the right way).

McCain had gravitas.  He had the perfect record, a highly distinguished career in the military, a long history of diligent work in government, the on-paper perfect resume to become President.  Substantive.  Dignified.  Serious.  And it didn't help him win.  If he had won, he wouldn't have been a good President.

GWB's speeches were well-reasoned and inspiring.  He had a lot of great stuff to say.  Thing is, nobody knows it because nobody listened to the content of W's speeches.  Cheney had a lot of interesting substantive things to say, too, yet nobody listened to him either.  Gravitas?  W had none of it, Cheney had it aplenty, and it didn't matter a bit in either case.

Gravitas misses the point.  A Prez needs to be likable, have the right policies, and be able to change peoples' minds.  Gravitas doesn't enter into it anywhere.