Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on April 15, 2010, 11:22:09 AM
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1247346&format=text
Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin in 2012? You betcha!
By Edward Mason, Hillary Chabot and Jessica Van Sack | Thursday, April 15, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com | U.S. Politics
Photo
Photo by Stuart Cahill
Conservative superstar Sarah Palin opened the door yesterday to joining forces with Mitt Romney for a 2012 White House run - a hot ticket that has some Republicans licking their chops at the prospect of unseating President Obama.
“Sounds pretty good,” Palin declared at yesterday’s Tea Party Express rally on the Common when asked about pairing up with the former Bay State governor - giving the idea a big thumbs-up as she left the stage after her headline speech.
Last night, as Palin stopped for cannoli at Mike’s Pastry in the North End, she said she was “serious” about the idea.
“I have a lot of respect for Mitt,” she told the Herald.
Asked who would be on top of the ticket, Palin roared, “Ha! I haven’t even thought that far ahead yet.”
Indeed, Palin said she hasn’t decided whether she’ll run in 2012 - with or without Romney.
Romney, a presumptive 2012 Republican presidential contender who recently embarked on a nationwide book tour, has not ruled out an alliance with Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential candidate.
“Mitt Romney respects Sarah Palin and he appreciates the contributions she makes to the party,” said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “But his immediate focus is on helping Republicans win back the Congress in 2010.”
Some veteran political observers were intrigued by the notion of the two telegenic former GOP governors on the same ticket.
“They both have a lot they can offer a campaign,” said Douglas Lorenz, a California-based GOP consultant. “Romney has the experience as a governor and experience as a candidate for president, and when you combine that with Sarah Palin’s ability to get people motivated, that could definitely be a formidable ticket.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos called the matchup “the best of both worlds.”
“They both come at it from totally different parts of the spectrum,” said Mihos, who attended yesterday’s Tea Party rally. “One deals on a gut level with people and the other is highly successful on the business end of things.”
Speaking before a rapt crowd estimated at 5,000, Palin squarely targeted Democrats, pounding away at Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package. She also lobbied for domestic oil drilling.
“I want to tell ’em, ‘Nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion - and you can keep the change,” Palin said, later adding, “Yeah, let’s drill, baby, drill; not stall, baby, stall - you betcha.”
Meanwhile, Palin said last night she had no hard feelings about U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s decision to skip the rally. “He was in Washington doing his job,” she said.
State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who also is running for governor as an independent, joked that a prospective alliance between Palin and Romney would “a good-looking ticket.”
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_jzEljRHUBiI%2FReniRrLBusI%2FAAAAAAAAAOg%2FUB3aGW9odY4%2Fs400%2Frudymcromneysp.gif&hash=bdcf5b0d438f9c846a86dd03af4c53b3c94ec7d1)
Everyone remember the 3-headed RINO here?
Palin has been a darling of the libertarian/tea-party conservatives because she talks a good talk...
But she supports McCain over JD Hayworth.
Romney is another archetype RINO, just like McCain. Appease, appease, appease. Socialism-lite.
Palin is the enemy in the Tea Party. She is the GOP's attempt to hijack it.
-
I'm dissapointed in the direction Palin has taken with her political ambitions. Maybe it was wishful thinking on my part, but she could have given a lot of momentum to the anti-status quo candidates.
-
Honestly I doubt any of the realistic 2012 GOP candidates are stupid enough to link up with Palin as a VP. It would be political suicide.
The only way Palin will help the GOP (or the Tea Party) in 2012 is if she stays out of the general race but points her fans towards a likely candidate that actually has a chance.
-
Yeah, Palin started out pretty strong in my opinion, but she either lost her way or had bad intentions from the beginning. To say I am greatly disappointed in her is an understatement. A pity, because she really had great potential. I still view her as far better than any other candidate put forth by the GOP or Dems, but paired with Romney? Puhlease. As I have been saying, the GOP is going to waste voter anger on a lame duck ticket in 2012. And Obama will get a second term. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Palin/Nugent? That would get my vote.
-
Everyone remember the 3-headed RINO here?
Palin has been a darling of the libertarian/tea-party conservatives because she talks a good talk...
But she supports McCain over JD Hayworth.
Romney is another archetype RINO, just like McCain. Appease, appease, appease. Socialism-lite.
Palin is the enemy in the Tea Party. She is the GOP's attempt to hijack it.
:facepalm:
-
You guys are right on:(
I'm not looking forward to the 2012 elections because we really don't have any viable candidates. I HATE these candidates we have been bringing up.
We really need Ron Paul.
It might be too late for our country with the direction the GOP has gone.
~Norinco
-
Yeah, Palin started out pretty strong in my opinion, but she either lost her way or had bad intentions from the beginning. To say I am greatly disappointed in her is an understatement. A pity, because she really had great potential. I still view her as far better than any other candidate put forth by the GOP or Dems, but paired with Romney? Puhlease. As I have been saying, the GOP is going to waste voter anger on a lame duck ticket in 2012. And Obama will get a second term. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Palin/Nugent? That would get my vote.
With the candidates available, the GOP doesn't have much chance unless Obama does something to alienate his base. But then, I don't know if the current GOP leaders could even find someone who could beat Hillary right now. The GOP needs to find another Reagan or they are done till 2016. They are probably better off focusing on congressional seats.
Really, I don't think she will run though, I think she is just drumming up excitement. Her chances at high political office died when she gave up her governorship (If she had any left after the beating she took from the media in the 08 election cycle), and I think she must know that. If she stays on the side though she has a long and profitable career doing public speaking, book tours, advertising, etc. and she has a chance to send money towards other candidates.
-
Ah, the Stupid Party versus the Evil Party again :'(
-
I'm starting to feel like I did in the08 election. Like I'm not even sure if I want the GOP to win. You would think they would have learned not to run Democrat-Lite candidates after that debacle, but it appears they will not stop trying to put McCains or Romneys into office. Even if we win and succeed in getting BHO booted, what do we win? Is not losing more gain? Is not being harmed more being helped? Is not having the worst president having a good president? This is 08 all over again. It's like our only choice is to split the vote voting for real candidates and let BHO have another 4 years of destruction, or vote for whatever RINO the Republican Machine puts up and possibly get stuck with a lot of the same policies, just with our names branded on them.
-
May I note for people that it is TWO THOUSAND TEN, not 2012 yet?
I'm all for bashing Republicans for putting forward mealy-mouthed RINO's and "moderates".
Being that it is TWO THOUSAND TEN, though, we still have 2 years to work towards preventing that.
-
Is Bobby Jindal considering a run?
-
I'm starting to feel like I did in the08 election. Like I'm not even sure if I want the GOP to win. You would think they would have learned not to run Democrat-Lite candidates after that debacle, but it appears they will not stop trying to put McCains or Romneys into office. Even if we win and succeed in getting BHO booted, what do we win? Is not losing more gain? Is not being harmed more being helped? Is not having the worst president having a good president? This is 08 all over again. It's like our only choice is to split the vote voting for real candidates and let BHO have another 4 years of destruction, or vote for whatever RINO the Republican Machine puts up and possibly get stuck with a lot of the same policies, just with our names branded on them.
The GOP is between a rock and a hard place though. Guys who appeal to the GOP right, like the Tea Party faction, want candidates that the GOP's own moderates won't vote for, or at least won't shell out money for.
If the GOP really gets behind a candidate like Ron Paul (or someone similar) it is a lose-lose. If they don't make it through the primaries a bunch of money gets spent without benefiting the actual race. If they do make it through the primaries they'll win the reddest states but they will be butchered in the swing states.
The only way the GOP will get a right of moderate candidate into office is by raw charisma, and that is what people are lamenting...there isn't even anyone in the up and comers with that kind of populist appeal. I honestly don't see what the GOP is supposed to do besides hope Obama has a political disaster.
-
FTR, yesterday I saw a poll pitting BHO vs Ron Paul. BHO "won" 42% to 41%, within the margin of error.
What this tells me is that the GOP does not need to run a RINO in 2012.
As far as Palin's endorsements, she has done nothing risky.
-
May I note for people that it is TWO THOUSAND TEN, not 2012 yet?
I'm all for bashing Republicans for putting forward mealy-mouthed RINO's and "moderates".
Being that it is TWO THOUSAND TEN, though, we still have 2 years to work towards preventing that.
BHO started the infantcy of his campaign in 2006. Nowadays it takes around 2 years for one of the "small guys" to start a good campaign. Maybe we should currently look for relative unknowns out there who are considering a run.
FTR, yesterday I saw a poll pitting BHO vs Ron Paul. BHO "won" 42% to 41%, within the margin of error.
What this tells me is that the GOP does not need to run a RINO in 2012.
As far as Palin's endorsements, she has done nothing risky.
I know a few people who were torn between Paul and Obama during the '08 election, because they believed both offered a new type of politics. Then the GOP helped them choose Obama.
I doubt the GOP will be wise enough to learn from their mistakes though. To be honest, since the GOP made their positions clear in the last cycle, I really don't care who wins.
I don't think it will matter which party wins in the long run.
-
alex, I'm leaning more towards your thinking every day. Welcome to Rome.
-
FTR, yesterday I saw a poll pitting BHO vs Ron Paul. BHO "won" 42% to 41%, within the margin of error.
What this tells me is that the GOP does not need to run a RINO in 2012.
As far as Palin's endorsements, she has done nothing risky.
Can you cite this?
Edit: Nevermind, I found it. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
-
Can you cite this?
Here you go. Plenty of links at the page, so you might want to click on through, especially to get at what Rassmusen means WRT Mainstream vs Political classes.
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.
Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president. [Independents breaking for RP, big time. Opportunity for GOP to emphasize liberty??--jfruser]
Paul, an anti-big government libertarian who engenders unusually strong feelings among his supporters, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he continues to have a solid following, especially in the growing Tea Party movement.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of Paul, while 30% view him unfavorably. This includes 10% with a very favorable opinion and 12% with a very unfavorable one. But nearly one-out-of-three voters (32%) are not sure what they think of Paul.
Perhaps tellingly, just 42% of Republican voters have a favorable view of him, including eight percent (8%) with a very favorable opinion. By comparison, 42% of unaffiliated voters regard him favorably, with 15% very favorable toward him.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of GOP voters think Paul shares the values of most Republican voters throughout the nation, but 25% disagree. Forty-nine percent (49%) are not sure.
Similarly, 27% of Republicans see Paul as a divisive force in the party, while 30% view him as a new direction for the GOP. Forty-two percent (42%) aren’t sure.
Among all voters, 19% say Paul shares the values of most Republican voters, and 27% disagree. Fifty-four percent (54%) are undecided.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters nationwide regard Paul as a divisive force in the GOP. Thirty-four percent (34%) say he is representative of a new direction for the party. Forty-five percent (45%) are not sure.
But it’s important to note than 75% of Republicans voters believe Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation over the past several years.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the GOP’s vice presidential nominee in 2008, is another Republican who has been bucking the party’s traditional leadership and was the keynote speaker at the recent Tea Party convention in Nashville. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation. Just 18% of Republicans see Palin as a divisive force within the GOP.
Rasmussen Reports released survey findings yesterday that take a closer look at the political views of those who say they’re part of the Tea Party movement. Among other things, 96% of those in the movement think America is overtaxed, and 94% trust the judgment of the American people more than that of America’s political leaders.
When it comes to major issues confronting the nation, 48% of voters now say the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than Obama is. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters now think Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people. Nearly half (47%) of voters disagree and say a new party is not needed
If the Tea Party was organized as a political party, 34% of voters would prefer a Democrat in a three-way congressional race. In that hypothetical match-up, the Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in third at 21%. However, if only the Democrat or Republican had a real chance to win, most of the Tea Party supporters would vote for the Republican.
-
Now if we had a guy like Ron Paul, but younger and with more moderate views on foreign policy... like, maybe, if Ron Paul had a son...
-
@JF: Thanks. Sorry I didn't get my link up sooner, and saved you some time.
-
joining forces with Mitt Romney
eeech.
-
Now if we had a guy like Ron Paul, but younger and with more moderate views on foreign policy... like, maybe, if Ron Paul had a son...
Crazy talk, I say. First, he'd have to at least gotten elected to the Senate or Governor or something, and what's the likelihood of that?
GOP KY Senate Candidate Primary
In a Republican Primary for US Senate today, 04/12/10, 5 weeks from the vote, Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson 45% to 30%, according to this exclusive Louisville Courier-Journal Bluegrass / WHAS-TV Poll conducted by SurveyUSA.
KY Senate Race
With Kentucky’s Republican primary just six weeks away, both GOP hopefuls for governor earn 50% or more of the vote in match-ups with their chief Democratic rivals.
...
Rand Paul with comparable double-digit leads over Democratic Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo and Jack Conway, Kentucky’s attorney general. Neither of the Democrats has gained much ground from a month ago...
Paul, an ophthalmologist who is seeking his first political office, posts a 52% to 37% lead over Mongiardo and leads Conway 50% to 36%.
OK, maybe not-so-crazy talk.
It sure would be nice to see the GOP lose some of the statist & establishment hangers-on while strengthening its stand for liberty.
-
I will not vote for Mitt Romney, no matter who his VP is.
-
I will not vote for Mitt Romney, no matter who his VP is.
How come?
-
With the candidates available, the GOP doesn't have much chance unless Obama does something to alienate his base.
I thought Obama had already done quite a bit of that.
-
With the candidates available, the GOP doesn't have much chance unless Obama does something to alienate his base.
I thought Obama had already done quite a bit of that.
The sick, conspiratorial [tinfoil] part of me thinks that Obama and the RINOs are in cahoots.
Obama will screw up for 4 years but get nasty Statist things done, then yield the floor to the RINOs or NeoCons (like Bush-43 and his additions to authoritarianism and executive power and police state) who will do different nasty Statist things, but we (the circus audience) will cheer as the pendulum appears to swing.
All the while, both sides will decry the lunacy of the fringe hatemongering moonbeam drinking tea partiers and libertarians as "fomenters of antiquated and dangerous ideas."
I swear that they're all just waiting for the perfect patsy to use as a trojan horse in the Liberty movement so they can declare the whole thing a "domestic terrorist group" and do away with the opposition that they flat-out refuse to face openly on the battlefield of ideas.
Palin's actions reinforce that suspicion. So far, she's played the political patsy and trojan horse perfectly. Tom Clancy couldn't have written the plot better.
-
The sick, conspiratorial [tinfoil] part of me thinks that Obama and the RINOs are in cahoots.
Obama will screw up for 4 years but get nasty Statist things done, then yield the floor to the RINOs or NeoCons (like Bush-43 and his additions to authoritarianism and executive power and police state) who will do different nasty Statist things, but we (the circus audience) will cheer as the pendulum appears to swing.
All the while, both sides will decry the lunacy of the fringe hatemongering moonbeam drinking tea partiers and libertarians as "fomenters of antiquated and dangerous ideas."
I swear that they're all just waiting for the perfect patsy to use as a trojan horse in the Liberty movement so they can declare the whole thing a "domestic terrorist group" and do away with the opposition that they flat-out refuse to face openly on the battlefield of ideas.
Palin's actions reinforce that suspicion. So far, she's played the political patsy and trojan horse perfectly. Tom Clancy couldn't have written the plot better.
[tinfoil]
What's the problem with conspiracy theories again?
Oh, right, it's that if more than one person knows something, it won't be a secret for long.
Seriously, your hat is cutting off circulation.
-
Politics 101: If you want help from somebody, you need to be helpful to them.
Anyone wanna tell me how it would be bad for Palin (or us) for Romney and McCain and all of the other establishment old-guard Republicans to be in her debt? If the woman ever intends to run for national office, these establishment people WILL be involved, either as allies or adversaries. There is considerable power concentrated in the establishment Republican Party circles. Better to turn that power to your advantage and use it than to try to fight it off. Can you imagine the kind of candidate who could unite the Rep establishment with the groundswell Tea Partiers? That candidate would be nigh unstoppable. That candidate would make Reagan look like a piker.
All in all, it's a good sign to see from Palin. It tells me she wants to run, and she wants to win, and she's smart and savvy enough to pull it off. Shows she isn't naive or incompetent. Contrast that with a guy like Ron Paul who is deliberately impolitic and therefore will never become a serious policy-maker.
-
Politics 101: If you want help from somebody, you need to be helpful to them.
Anyone wanna tell me how it would be bad for Palin (or us) for Romney and McCain and all of the other establishment old-guard Republicans to be in her debt? If the woman ever intends to run for national office, these establishment people WILL be involved, either as allies or adversaries. There is considerable power concentrated in the establishment Republican Party circles. Better to turn that power to your advantage and use it than to try to fight it off. Can you imagine the kind of candidate who could unite the Rep establishment with the groundswell Tea Partiers? That candidate would be nigh unstoppable. That candidate would make Reagan look like a piker.
All in all, it's a good sign to see from Palin. It tells me she wants to run, and she wants to win, and she's smart and savvy enough to pull it off. Shows she isn't naive or incompetent. Contrast that with a guy like Ron Paul who is deliberately impolitic and therefore will never become a serious policy-maker.
You really think she could win? I'm not baiting, I'm seriously asking. I've heard lots of people say they like her, but I don't know if I've heard anyone say they think she could win.
-
One of Palin's biggest problems is that even the Republicans and conservatives have too many stupid people in the ranks that don't know the difference between Sarah Palin and Tina Fey.
-
Palin's biggest problem is not stupid people or Tina Fey.
It is some combination of the following:
1. She is extremely polarizing.
2. She is inexperienced.
3. She quit in the middle of her term as govenor. Excusable or not, if she was too polarizing to function as govenor of one of the least populated states, why would she be able to function as POTUS?
Quite frankly, claiming Ron Paul won't get elected because he doesn't kiss enough butt is probably true, but simultaneously claiming tha Palin should be president because she kisses butt is incorrect IMO.
There is a reason no one follows the office butt kisser, because they don't stand for anything. Applying this to Palin, what makes her more qualified than any other republican if she supports their policies/ideas and doesn't have principles?
-
1. She is extremely polarizing.
+1
As I'm trying to cultivate a suspicious outlook on life in general, I'm thinking that Palin is much more like McCain than I originally believed.
-
+1
As I'm trying to cultivate a suspicious outlook on life in general, I'm thinking that Palin is much more like McCain than I originally believed.
Yep. She snookered me at first, too.
Politics 101: If you want help from somebody, you need to be helpful to them.
Anyone wanna tell me how it would be bad for Palin (or us) for Romney and McCain and all of the other establishment old-guard Republicans to be in her debt? If the woman ever intends to run for national office, these establishment people WILL be involved, either as allies or adversaries. There is considerable power concentrated in the establishment Republican Party circles. Better to turn that power to your advantage and use it than to try to fight it off. Can you imagine the kind of candidate who could unite the Rep establishment with the groundswell Tea Partiers? That candidate would be nigh unstoppable. That candidate would make Reagan look like a piker.
All in all, it's a good sign to see from Palin. It tells me she wants to run, and she wants to win, and she's smart and savvy enough to pull it off. Shows she isn't naive or incompetent. Contrast that with a guy like Ron Paul who is deliberately impolitic and therefore will never become a serious policy-maker.
Then the nooz would talk about Palin/Romney... not Romney/Palin.
The article cited talked about Romney/Palin.
Which means that Sarah's supposed libertarian-leaning policies would take back seat to Romney's legacy of state health care, authoritarian law, high taxes and liberal appeasement.
Palin won't unite Tea Partiers with the GOP establishment by courting a RINO. Remember? It didn't work in 2008.
The Tea Party was created BECAUSE of McCain...
-
Yep. She snookered me at first, too.
Then the nooz would talk about Palin/Romney... not Romney/Palin.
The article cited talked about Romney/Palin.
Which means that Sarah's supposed libertarian-leaning policies would take back seat to Romney's legacy of state health care, authoritarian law, high taxes and liberal appeasement.
Palin won't unite Tea Partiers with the GOP establishment by courting a RINO. Remember? It didn't work in 2008.
The Tea Party was created BECAUSE of McCain...
No, the Tea Party is a spontaneous response to out of control spending. McCain wasn't even a catalyst.
Look, AGAIN, it is TWO THOUSAND TEN. A smart politician doesn't undercut potential allies for no good reason.
In TWO THOUSAND TEN, creating in-fighting amongst possible presidential contenders for TWO THOUSAND TWELVE will only hurt the chances of turning this crap around in the TWO THOUSAND TEN elections.
To everything there is a season... and sniping about a presidential election when there are congressional elections to win is the wrong season.
-
Both of the major political parties want to screw us, we need a 3rd party candidate that could actually win.
Ron Paul 2012!!
-
No, the Tea Party is a spontaneous response to out of control spending. McCain wasn't even a catalyst.
Look, AGAIN, it is TWO THOUSAND TEN. A smart politician doesn't undercut potential allies for no good reason.
In TWO THOUSAND TEN, creating in-fighting amongst possible presidential contenders for TWO THOUSAND TWELVE will only hurt the chances of turning this crap around in the TWO THOUSAND TEN elections.
To everything there is a season... and sniping about a presidential election when there are congressional elections to win is the wrong season.
But circular firing squads are so much more fun.
-
Palin has been a darling of the libertarian/tea-party conservatives because she talks a good talk...
I think true Conservo-libertarians have been alarmed by the populist overtones in some of her speeches. Self included. Seems like you've picked up on it as well, we can't be the only ones.
-
Palin is the Establishment Republican's means of co-opting the tea party movement. She is an extremely photogenic, intriguing personality who is green as gourd guts when it comes to major league politics. Her only chance of demonstrating policy substance is to align herself with experienced hands at republican policy. At some point enterprising reporters will identify her brain trust, aides, policy advisers, and handlers. That will clue Joe and Martha Sixpack into how much of a game changer she really is. Meanwhile over at the tea party I see republican operators being very helpful. I see Dick Armey offering organizing assistance for mass rallies. I see Grover Norquist flitting around the edges events. The republican establishment will either co-opt the tea party movement or they will destroy it. Existing republican ideology and tea party demands can not exist in the same eco-sphere peacefully. One has to dominate.
-
Palin is the Establishment Republican's means of co-opting the tea party movement. She is an extremely photogenic, intriguing personality who is green as gourd guts when it comes to major league politics. Her only chance of demonstrating policy substance is to align herself with experienced hands at republican policy. At some point enterprising reporters will identify her brain trust, aides, policy advisers, and handlers. That will clue Joe and Martha Sixpack into how much of a game changer she really is. Meanwhile over at the tea party I see republican operators being very helpful. I see Dick Armey offering organizing assistance for mass rallies. I see Grover Norquist flitting around the edges events. The republican establishment will either co-opt the tea party movement or they will destroy it. Existing republican ideology and tea party demands can not exist in the same eco-sphere peacefully. One has to dominate.
[tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
Yep, it's all a terrible conspiracy to destroy a movement that wants fiscal sanity!!!!
It's not at all that some of these politicians have been wanting that for years- they were just setting themselves up so they could destroy the Tea Party movement!!!111
-
No, the Tea Party is a spontaneous response to out of control spending. McCain wasn't even a catalyst.
Look, AGAIN, it is TWO THOUSAND TEN. A smart politician doesn't undercut potential allies for no good reason.
In TWO THOUSAND TEN, creating in-fighting amongst possible presidential contenders for TWO THOUSAND TWELVE will only hurt the chances of turning this crap around in the TWO THOUSAND TEN elections.
To everything there is a season... and sniping about a presidential election when there are congressional elections to win is the wrong season.
I think it is way to early to be looking for potential candidates. The only ones out in public are those who have been involved in the race before. All the new comers are keeping their heads down. IMO, that is smart not only because of what makattak said, but anyone who throws their hat in too early will be wearing a big target on their back.
I agree that Palin is polarizing. I see that clearly on another site I visit. Some love her, some really hate her, with very little in between. It is obvious a lot of potential Repub voters are not ready to vote for her. However, I think much of that is people's reaction to her and not necessarily anything she has done. Personally, I think she would do best to stay out of the next race and use her media attention to snipe at Obama and try to keep his focus off his opponents.
-
Sara is doing exactly what she should be doing. She is keeping her name in the forefront, attacking the President when the opportunity arises and supporting Republican candidates running in 2010.
I fail to see how she is polarizing. Except for the fact that far left hates her (they will hate anyone right of obama), the wookie suit crowd hates her (anyone who takes the spotlight away from Ron Paul earns their ire) and the woman-can't-lead this country crowd hates her, "she doesn't have enough experience" (like the community organizer does?). She has more experience running something than our current President. There were Republicans in the last election that voted for obama just to have a black President, that little titillation is gone. They realized they acted stupidly.
When/if Sara Palin is elected President, NEWS FLASH, she will not be doing it all by herself. She will appoint advisers and Cabinet member to help her make decisions. It's not a one man operation.
-
Sara is doing exactly what she should be doing. She is keeping her name in the forefront, attacking the President when the opportunity arises and supporting Republican candidates running in 2010.
I fail to see how she is polarizing. Except for the fact that far left hates her (they will hate anyone right of obama), the wookie suit crowd hates her (anyone who takes the spotlight away from Ron Paul earns their ire) and the woman-can't-lead this country crowd hates her, "she doesn't have enough experience" (like the community organizer does?). She has more experience running something than our current President. There were Republicans in the last election that voted for obama just to have a black President, that little titillation is gone. They realized they acted stupidly.
When/if Sara Palin is elected President, NEWS FLASH, she will not be doing it all by herself. She will appoint advisers and Cabinet member to help her make decisions. It's not a one man operation.
Palin spent 2.5 years governing the least populated state in the country. BHO has spent 1.33 years as POTUS. I think it is fair to say he has more experience governing, or at least that a comparison between them is too close to call (ignoring BHO legislative experience).
Here is how I read your post above:
Palin isn't polarizing because different groups don't like her.
We made a mistake electing BHO (presumably because he is inexperienced) so it's ok to do it again with Palin.
Experience doesn't matter because of the cabinet.
So taking the last one further, has Palin demonstrated the ability to choose advisors?
Was she advised to quit politics as a way to somehow be more qualified to run in 2012? Did she listen to her advisors during the election? Most rumors put that as a "negative."
-
lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Palin ought to think of that before paling around with loathsome critters like McCain and Romney.
-
Sara is doing exactly what she should be doing. She is keeping her name in the forefront, attacking the President when the opportunity arises and supporting Republican candidates running in 2010.
I fail to see how she is polarizing.
Polling data shows that most people either don't view her favorably or are undecided. If you break it down by party affiliation, the difference is pretty large. I fail to see how she is not polarizing. I am not suggesting she couldn't win, but she has a ways to go.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_palin_040810.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_palin_040810.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody)
-
lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Palin ought to think of that before paling around with loathsome critters like McCain and Romney.
The only way for her to avoid "lying down with dogs" is to retire from politics completely.
-
The only way for her to avoid "lying down with dogs" is to retire from politics completely.
Bingo!
Polling data shows that most people either don't view her favorably or are undecided. If you break it down by party affiliation, the difference is pretty large. I fail to see how she is not polarizing. I am not suggesting she couldn't win, but she has a ways to go.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_palin_040810.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_palin_040810.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody)
You're going to use CBS as a credible news/poll source? I rest my case.
And another thing, who do you propose as an alternative to the good-old-boys who've been running things? Obama's inexperience doesn't worry me as much as his left wing agenda. At least Sara Palin leans in the right direction.
-
The only way for her to avoid "lying down with dogs" is to retire from politics completely.
I have a really hard time believing the whole " I have to play nice with the statists, and help them get re-elected, but when I get elected, I'll get right back to that whole limited government thing"
Grow some principles already. Either you support the statist RINOs or your don't.
-
Yep, it's all a terrible conspiracy to destroy a movement that wants fiscal sanity!!!!
Naah, just an understanding that it is a long, long ways between demonstrating in the streets a justifiable outrage and gaining control of the levers and switches of power. The more the tea party message resonates with the ruling class (republican or democrat) the more resistance it will encounter. The tea party message when fully developed will be correctly understood as an assault on the existing power structure (democrat or republican) which means a threat to the flow of money. Republicans have to either control and convert the ideology for their ends (in order to remain in power) or they have to neutralize it (to prevent the formation of a viable third party). I wish the tea party movement great success. I"m just realistic enough to understand the republican party is its ally right up to the point of inflicting damage. then all bets are off.
-
I don't think Palin would get the nomination in 2012, but I do think she's setting herself up to be a power broker. Think Jesse Jackson and the Democrat party, but with scruples.
If she has a degree of control over the Tea Party movement she has some control of the Republican party.
I don't think she's doing the tour for kicks.
-
Honestly at this point, I would prefer Palin not be on the ticket. Not because I disagree with her, but because I see so many people who already think she's an idiot (thanks media), that I don't think she could ever be another Reagan. I don't see her winning over the common man. She has been portrayed as a buffoon by the media too much, and her quitting as a Governor is just too much for even me. I'd rather see Bobby Jindal, or even someone new. Not to say I dislike Palin, just that I think too much negativity has been brought against her from the last campaign to really give her a chance.
-
I don't think Palin would get the nomination in 2012, but I do think she's setting herself up to be a power broker. Think Jesse Jackson and the Democrat party, but with scruples.
If she has a degree of control over the Tea Party movement she has some control of the Republican party.
I don't think she's doing the tour for kicks.
My problem though is I don't see how she can help in 2012 at all, at least in the real race. The people who like her aren't going to vote for anyone but GOP or third party anyway, she isn't going to shake moderates or liberals.
Unless you mean a power broker for the GOP primaries, in which case I agree that might be the case.
-
mellestad,
Think of the GOP primaries. Palin's support would be quite influential, there.
Speaking of third parties, Palin will likely encourage a lot of conservatives/libertarian sorts to go ahead and take another chance on the GOP, rather than vote third party. Or in the unlikely event she goes third party herself, the opposite will occur.
-
mellestad,
Think of the GOP primaries. Palin's support would be quite influential, there.
Speaking of third parties, Palin will likely encourage a lot of conservatives/libertarian sorts to go ahead and take another chance on the GOP, rather than vote third party. Or in the unlikely event she goes third party herself, the opposite will occur.
Yea, I think I mentioned that in my last sentance. If that is what he meant, I agree with him.
-
IMO, she could also be a distraction for Democrats. Since she apparently does attract media attention, and she can say things in speeches attacking Obama and let the Repub candidate stay out of it.
IMO, she is polarizing simply due to people's reaction to her. Even among Republicans or at least right leaning independents, people seem to love her or hate her. It doesn't matter if she is the cause or not. I think some of the reactions to her are kind of stupid myself.
Lastly, I get the feeling some of you will never be happy until the PERFECT candidate shows up. Unfortunately, that person will never exist. If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.
-
If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.
Oh, yeah. A rich white guy who owned slaves and was a war-monger to boot.
-
IMO, she could also be a distraction for Democrats. Since she apparently does attract media attention, and she can say things in speeches attacking Obama and let the Repub candidate stay out of it.
IMO, she is polarizing simply due to people's reaction to her. Even among Republicans or at least right leaning independents, people seem to love her or hate her. It doesn't matter if she is the cause or not. I think some of the reactions to her are kind of stupid myself.
Lastly, I get the feeling some of you will never be happy until the PERFECT candidate shows up. Unfortunately, that person will never exist. If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.
I don't want perfect, I'd just like to see someone on the right who was fiscally conservative but socially moderate and vaugle electable. I don't think the GOP will have much luck without some social moderation, and the country would benefit from some honest competition from a real fiscal conservative. Keep the left honest, as it were. As it stands now the parties seem very similar as far as fiscal policy (even if they like to say they aren't). Everyone talks about a balanced budget, and no-one really tries to do it. Although, really, the POTUS isn't going to matter there, that is pure congress.
-
The real problem that no one, including even many tea partiers, is people like their government spending.
No one wants higher taxes, and they don't want to touch Medicare, SS, and national defense. The typical response from people is to "cut something less important." What they don't realize is that for the budget to be balanced something has to give. I know it depends where we are on the laferty curve, but several people have evidence of being on either side. It's hard to objectively determine.
The budget will never be balanced, changing any of those is political suicide.
-
The real problem that no one, including even many tea partiers, is people like their government spending.
No one wants higher taxes, and they don't want to touch Medicare, SS, and national defense. The typical response from people is to "cut something less important." What they don't realize is that for the budget to be balanced something has to give. I know it depends where we are on the laferty curve, but several people have evidence of being on either side. It's hard to objectively determine.
The budget will never be balanced, changing any of those is political suicide.
Personally, I think there is political will to balance the budget right now. Especially if they can get the rest of the financial meltdown behind them.
I don't think it will happen, mind you, but I think the public will is available. It might not be available again for a long time either.
-
I don't think the GOP will have much luck without some social moderation,
The GOP's social positions share broad popular support. It is actually the Democratic and Libertarian parties that alienate voters with their fringe social ideas.
-
Personally, I think there is political will to balance the budget right now. Especially if they can get the rest of the financial meltdown behind them.
I don't think it will happen, mind you, but I think the public will is available. It might not be available again for a long time either.
Out of curiousity, where do you see it?
Many of the tea party people don't want any of the four changed, and some tea party candidates are complaining about too little money being spent in their districts. I don't think those protesters are necessarily any indication of willingness to support what is necessary.
-
Lastly, I get the feeling some of you will never be happy until the PERFECT candidate shows up. Unfortunately, that person will never exist. If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.
Ayup.
I think part of the problem is that so few of us realize just how diverse the electorate is. People on our side forget that there are lots and lots of voters out there that aren't in full lockstep agreement with our positions all down the line. Naturally, any sensible politician will court those other voters, too, not just us. And when they do we dump on 'em as if they've committed an unforgivable sin.
Another problem is that we're incapable of setting aside minor disagreements and working on the big picture goals that we all share. We'd rather snipe at each other over minor matters than cooperate to make changes we all can agree on. Contrast that against the left, where they've managed to unite feminists, academia, blacks, journalists, unions, celebrities, environuts, gays... And look what they've managed to accomplish because of it. Back on our side, we can't get the libertarians and the Christians to cooperate on mutual interests like reducing the size of government, they'd rather piss on each other over abortion and posting the 10 commandments in public. We can't get the tea partiers to cooperate with the Republicans on mutual interests like lowering taxes, they'd rather argue Ron Paul vs John McCain.
If we don't get real with ourselves, shed some of this naivety, agree to cooperate despite minor differences, and make peace with our imperfect systemof government, then we're completely hosed. We will have no chance at all of saving our country.
-
The GOP's social positions share broad popular support. It is actually the Democratic and Libertarian parties that alienate voters with their fringe social ideas.
Yes, although I don't think they have terribly more support than the Dems on average.
That is what I meant though, the GOP has a hard time keeping social moderation and fiscal conservativism in the same human being.
-
Out of curiousity, where do you see it?
Many of the tea party people don't want any of the four changed, and some tea party candidates are complaining about too little money being spent in their districts. I don't think those protesters are necessarily any indication of willingness to support what is necessary.
Populist outrage towards taxation and government expansion.
-
Populist outrage towards taxation and government expansion.
Yes populist outrage may certainly indicate the general feeling of the people. I would submit that while nearly everyone hates taxes and gov expansion, there is a big lack of concensus on which, if any, programs to cut.
Thus the status quo of increasing spending faster than increasing tax revenues will continue for the forseeable future.
-
Yes populist outrage may certainly indicate the general feeling of the people. I would submit that while nearly everyone hates taxes and gov expansion, there is a big lack of concensus on which, if any, programs to cut.
Thus the status quo of increasing spending faster than increasing tax revenues will continue for the forseeable future.
No, I agree (I don't think what the body politic feels really has a basis in reality anyway) that it isn't likely, I just think if you magically had a POTUS and a congress willing to cut back to balance the budget, I think you could get the people to roll with it right now.
I'm just speculating though.
-
I think what has made the Tea Parties so broad-based in membership, but spending/tax focused is that the magnitude of the spending and intrusion itself has morphed into a social issue. Folks see a fundamental change in the relation of the state to the citizen.
Over the years, "social moderate/liberal and fiscal conservative" usually means, "I'll cave on fiscal issues, too," or, "As long as we raise taxes to cover midnight basketball for blind, left-handed, lesbian dentists, I'll be fine with it." See the not-so-dynamic Senatorial duo from Maine and any number of self described social liberal/fiscal conservative types for examples.
The GOP will not soon forsake the social conservatives, as they are its largest and most loyal voting block.
-
I think what has made the Tea Parties so broad-based in membership, but spending/tax focused is that the magnitude of the spending and intrusion itself has morphed into a social issue. Folks see a fundamental change in the relation of the state to the citizen.
Over the years, "social moderate/liberal and fiscal conservative" usually means, "I'll cave on fiscal issues, too," or, "As long as we raise taxes to cover midnight basketball for blind, left-handed, lesbian dentists, I'll be fine with it." See the not-so-dynamic Senatorial duo from Maine and any number of self described social liberal/fiscal conservative types for examples.
The GOP will not soon forsake the social conservatives, as they are its largest and most loyal voting block.
True. Generally politicians are most loyal to their social issues than anything else.
-
That is what I meant though, the GOP has a hard time keeping social moderation and fiscal conservativism in the same human being.
You mean, in the same voter, or the same candidate?
-
. Back on our side, we can't get the libertarians and the Christians to cooperate on mutual interests like reducing the size of government, they'd rather piss on each other over abortion and posting the 10 commandments in public. We can't get the tea partiers to cooperate with the Republicans on mutual interests like lowering taxes, they'd rather argue Ron Paul vs John McCain.
I think this is a bit naïve in and of itself. You seem to underrate the depth of the difference. I may not care much about abortion, but there are millions of people to whom abortion is murder. I disagree with that, but I can't imagine that people who literally believe that millions of children are being murdered every day will compromise on this issue. Similarly, the difference between Ron Paul and McCain isn't a minor difference, it's a massive gaping chasm
-
I may not care much about abortion, but there are millions of people to whom abortion is murder. I disagree with that, but I can't imagine that people who literally believe that millions of children are being murdered every day will compromise on this issue.
I don't think it's millions per day, but this is a very important point. I tire of abortion being treated as a second-tier issue, or something on which we should be willing to compromise. It's not a compromise sort of thing.
-
I don't think it's millions per day, but this is a very important point. I tire of abortion being treated as a second-tier issue, or something on which we should be willing to compromise. It's not a compromise sort of thing.
I will not compromise on being pro-life and my stance on the second amendment.
-
I don't think it's millions per day, but this is a very important point. I tire of abortion being treated as a second-tier issue, or something on which we should be willing to compromise. It's not a compromise sort of thing.
I quite agree.
What I find funny is the so-called "fiscal conservatives" who decry the Republicans for opposing abortion-on-demand and claim if they'd just "moderate" and "compromise" they'd support them.
If those social issues aren't important, why can't those so-called "social liberals/fiscal moderates" just drop their position?
-
See, this is exactly what I mean.
If you don't like abortion, that's still no reason not to cooperate with pro-choicer Libertarians on issues like RKBA.
If you don't like the Christians opposition gay marriage, that's no reason not to cooperate with the fundies on illegal immigration.
The McCain establishment types and Paul wookie types disagree on a lot of things, but they both agree on the goal of balancing the budget. There's no reason they shouldn't be cooperating on that.
Don't like the RINOs? Neither do I. But let's be honest, if we'd had even just one more RINO Obamacare would have failed.
We don't all have to agree all down the line on this stuff. In fact, we will never fully agree on everything. We do have to be able to get along with each other well enough to save our country.
What we have now is each member of the right-leaning half of the political sphere getting all bent out of shape whenever the entire sphere doesn't do exactly what he wants. We'd much rather snipe at each other than at our true enemies on the left. ("I can't support Sara Palin anymore! Even though she represents most of what I believe, she dared to rub shoulders with Mitt Romney at a political event.")
This a huge problem. It's going to cost us our country.
-
Only one of those is properly a Federal issue.
Any justifications, excuses or exceptions that make a particular act of homicide lawful need to be determined by the citizens of a state for that state. As I recall polling data is pretty clear that even if Roe didn't exist most states would have some form of legal abortion (rape/incest/first trimester).
That said, Roe isn't going away any time soon (we'll need polling data showing a sufficient majority in a majority of states to amend the Constitution to get rid of it), so it is in fact a "second tier" issue in terms of real politik.
Candidates for Federal office pushing, or being perceived as pushing, absolute abortion bans are not going to win a plurality of the voters in a plurality of districts sufficient to reduce government expansion in a host of other areas, making it a litmus test alienates potential allies on those other issues in the near term.
If we can get rollback of gross Federal intrusions on individual and state's rights on less hot button issues (Raich and the like) we can go after Roe with some momentum and a snowball's chance in hell of success.
Incrementalism is working for anti-abortion efforts already, that's how we're going to win it, not running head-on into a brick wall losing on the other issues all the while.
-
You mean, in the same voter, or the same candidate?
Mainly the candidate.
I don't think most voters are willing to be fiscally conservative.
-
Mainly the candidate.
I don't think most voters are willing to be fiscally conservative.
I agree with this. No one wants to make the tough choices, andpeople will vote out the guy who wants to cut their "pay."
-
Only one of those is properly a Federal issue.
Any justifications, excuses or exceptions that make a particular act of homicide lawful need to be determined by the citizens of a state for that state. As I recall polling data is pretty clear that even if Roe didn't exist most states would have some form of legal abortion (rape/incest/first trimester).
That said, Roe isn't going away any time soon (we'll need polling data showing a sufficient majority in a majority of states to amend the Constitution to get rid of it), so it is in fact a "second tier" issue in terms of real politik.
Candidates for Federal office pushing, or being perceived as pushing, absolute abortion bans are not going to win a plurality of the voters in a plurality of districts sufficient to reduce government expansion in a host of other areas, making it a litmus test alienates potential allies on those other issues in the near term.
If we can get rollback of gross Federal intrusions on individual and state's rights on less hot button issues (Raich and the like) we can go after Roe with some momentum and a snowball's chance in hell of success.
Incrementalism is working for anti-abortion efforts already, that's how we're going to win it, not running head-on into a brick wall losing on the other issues all the while.
I do think getting rid of Roe vs Wade is the best solution for the abortion issue. If this was a state issue, I don't think it would be near the big national issue as it is now. Some states would be fully pro-life and some pro-choice, but most would end up in between. Americans would have choices.
-
Mainly the candidate.
I don't think most voters are willing to be fiscally conservative.
I often think this is one of the biggest differences between average liberal voters and average conservative voters. What do you cut and what exceptions do you make? I have met some liberals who really want to balance the budget and agreed with me on that, but they want to make exceptions for everything to the point of failure. Their solution always came back to cutting defense spending. It often comes down to a disagreement on what govt should be doing or not doing. If you think govt should do everything, you will always spend too much money.