2012
Because
'We are now the minority party but let us resolve not to become the negative party,'
Slow day today so I thought I'd take the opportunity to note that, thus far, I'm on board the new Republican party. That which should be led by Gov. Sarah Palin.
I'm also still wondering when the moonbats are going to start apologizing for swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the whole "trooper-gate" story? Of course they won't because the moonbats are motivated by hate and hate does not allow room for apologies. Let's just remind the moonbats that she was CLEARED of any wrong doing TWICE.
She has some work to do to make the top of the ticket. But 4 years is a REAL long time in politics. And I remember hearing Barack Obama speak at the Democratic convention when he was still a state senator and thinking...wow...this guy sound GOOD.
Of course look for the hate filled left to spend the next 4 years trying to mock her.
Posts
39 comments:
Right, because the public loved her SO MUCH!
She needs to worry about getting reelected in two years. You know Stevens (R-Felon) may well try and take her down when he goes...
We're still talking about her instead of forcing the rising stars of LEGIT conservatives like Jindal and Pawlenty?
C'mon!!!
First anon again, I agree, I really like Jindal in particular. Palin's problem is that she is a social conservative, which many Republicans, including myself, simply are not. I voted for McCain but honestly only because BHo was worse...
anon 2:26,
What a dummy. First... The public did like her (and actually still does) until the media started doing their hatchet work.
And no matter WHO the nominee is there will be the hatchet job done on them. And since you don't offer up any actual names we must assume that you are a liberal troll assigned to this blog.
Further the "Stevens" issue will actually help her. Which shows us all just how much you actually know about politics (nothing).
She ran against the Stevens machine and is therefore completely seperated from him in the minds of Alaskans.
Now run along back to liberal trollville where we know there is no Republican acceptable to you.
OK?
------
Anon 2:41,
She is a legit rising star and nothing says that Jindal or Pawlenty can't be on the ticket.
Actually Pawlenty is talented but boring and won't make it out of the Ames straw poll.
But tell me...Why are you spending time already attacking a Republican rising star? Could it be that you too are simply a liberal troll (probably the same) assigned to this blog to try to stirr up strife?
yip yip
-----
Anon 3:00,
You are not a Republican. Please stop trying to hide the fact that you are a liberal troll.
Your act is really easy to spot nowadays. It really became evident around September when the Obama blog machine kicked in.
There were some topics that I would post on this blog and suddenly, out of nowhere, there would be an immediate 3 or 4 comments, bam bam bam, that all tried to create a meme.
But what we do know is that Governor Palin scares the beejeezus out of you liberal moonbat trolls. Otherwise you would not be wasting your time putting conservative blogs like this on speed dial.
You are silly, immature and you stand out in a crowd.
But... You do make me look thoughtful in a very short amount of time.
yip yip
Four years will do wonders for Sarah. She has all the right instincts and would have done much better if she hadn't been picked at the last minute and then thrown in at the deep end.
Regarding the left's hatred of Palin, here's how one of my left wing acquaintances put it: "She was cleared in Troopergate, but the people who cleared her were Palin supporters. Anyway, even OJ Simpson was cleared but everyone knows he was guilty". There you have it. The left has nothing but untruths and off-the wall comparisons to bash Palin with.
Having said that, I'm not ready to say I'll support anyone as a leader of the so-called "new" Republican Party yet, not even Sarah Palin. Until she earns more legitimacy on the national stage, she's down in the pack, as far as I'm concerned. But four years is plenty of time for Palin to show us what she can do.
You want the "new Republican Party" to be led by Caribou Barbie? Yeah, that's the way to make sure you keep getting your asses kicked like you did this year. Have you paid any attention to the polls showing that Palin was TOXIC to most independents and dragged the ticket down? Or do you not believe them, or just don't care?
If you want to keep marginalizing your party, be my guest. Palin is the gift that keeps on giving ... to Democrats.
Bobby Jindal is the man, but Sarah Palin looks a lot better!
There are Republicans I would support for public office. Palin isn't one of them. The reason lies in the fact that she is a Bush-style right wing candidate, and not a true conservative.
This country has had enough of right wing idealogues with their social litmus tests, divisive rhetoric, and big government agenda.
What we need are truly conservative candidates who understand that the business of government is business, and who recognize the importance of investing in America's infrastructure to help rebuild our nation's economy.
Jindal and Pawlenty, even Romney the chameleon would be preferable to Palin whose is little more than a charismatic marionette.
Wow still a few moonbat trolls trying to shill their lies and mistruths...
----
Patrick,
I agree.
-----
Troutdale,
My support is for what I hope she can become in 4 years. I am supporter in with the idea that she gets a chance and I like what I have seen thus far so I hope that she can take it to the next level.
I am not saying I'm all in on that one candidate but that she is my favorite thus far.
----
Anonymoonbat trolls 4:45,
Why do you even care? You admit that you are not of our party and then we are supposed to take your advice?
Sounds to me like you are actually afraid of Gov. Sarah Palin.
And I see you offered no empirical evidence to back up your statement. Probably because all the empirical evidence runs counter to your moonbat advice.
What a maroon.
yip yip
--------
anon 4:47,
You are an idiot. Plain and simple and I see why you refuse to sign your name to your comments. I'd be embarrassed as well.
Was the media correct in pushing "trooper-gate?" Was the media correct in buying in to the "per diem" issue? (where were the apologies on EITHER of these when she ended up on the upside of the bogus stories?)
The first several days of the campaign the media did their level best to describe her as simply a small town mayor and completely ignoring the fact that she was a governor.
And...
Uhhh...why do I even try to waste my time with a moonbat? You traffic in lies anyway and never actually offer anything of any substance.
So...buh bye.... come back when you can offer something of substance.
----
Anon 10:20,
You are a troll because you are simply peddling the Democrat line.
And your comment would have been fine had you not decided to end it with an idiotic statement regarding the administrative rules of this blog.
I don't walk into your house and treat you like that. You don't walk in here.
That tells me that you are actually a Democrat trying to hijack the thread.
BTW...I have nothing against Jindal. I like Jindal.
However he will have to get beyond some of his comments regarding religion as well (I believe they are blown out of proportion). The press will have a field day with them even more so than they did with Governor Palin.
Now... You can repost your comment if you want but you don't get to act like a ten year old petulant child.
Save that for the Democrat blogs.
--------
anon 11:40,
Unfortunately the facts do not support your attempted spin.
She has not governed at all like a right wing idealogue.
And quite frankly either the public will be ready for ANYONE to be president in 4 years, or Obama would have pretty much closed up the Republican party forever (Alinsky style).
Jindal needs time on the national stage. If he is thrust into it you will have another Palin experience. I like him and how he governs but he needs the aura. The "thing" the "it factor."
He does not have that. I would love it if over the next 4 years he finds it.
Pawlenty won't get the "it" factor. Nice guy. Smart guy. And I would not have my heart broken if he unseats Obama in 4 years. But I just don't see it coming.
Romney? Really? ROMNEY?
No... You see this is how we know that you are simply a Democrat troll.
What you did is decide to attack a Republican (for no good reason) and attempt to create a divide.
Then you pretend to like some others and by tossing in the loser Romney you make it even worse.
Of course you won't sign your name to anything because if one of the other guys you are supporting now actually moves into front runner status you want to be free to attack them.
You are not an "independent." You are a Democrat. Just admit it.
yip yip
"Why do you even care? You admit that you are not of our party and then we are supposed to take your advice?"
I care because I believe in our form of government and I believe that for it to work we need (at least) two political parties offering real competition to each other. I want to see a viable alternative to the Democratic Party exist, whether it continues to be called the Republican Party or is called something else. The Palin Party is not a viable alternative for most Americans.
There are some things that transcend politics, or ought to. Isn't it about time that we stopped acting like this was all a big football game and caring about the good of the country instead of just whether "our team" wins or loses?
"And I see you offered no empirical evidence to back up your statement."
AUSTIN – Sarah Palin clearly helped energize white evangelicals, but was a net loss for the GOP presidential ticket, according to a new survey.
The survey found that 30 percent of white evangelicals said the addition of Ms. Palin made them more likely to support John McCain.
But across every other religious group – mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, occasional churchgoers and political independents – she cost the ticket votes.
"In terms of political strategy, that energizing event ... traded losses across the board," said Robert Jones, who conducted the survey for the nonpartisan group Faith in Public Life and co-sponsors Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
Mr. McCain hoped his selection of Ms. Palin as his running mate would attract a key bloc of religious conservatives who had been lukewarm about the Arizona senator.
According to the survey, 75 percent of white evangelicals said the Alaska governor shared their values, but most – 54 percent – said her addition to the ticket made no difference in their support for Mr. McCain. While 30 percent said it made them more likely to support the ticket, 14 percent said it made them less likely.
Among political independents, twice as many – 32 percent to 16 percent – said her selection made them less likely to support Mr. McCain. -- Dallas Morning News
I don't have the time or inclination to track them all down and post them here, but this is just one poll of many that shows Palin helped the ticket with the hard-core Republican evangelical "base" but hurt it with virtually everybody else. You can continue to live in denial of that fact -- and keep losing elections -- or you can move on and get about the business of rebuilding your party. Your choice.
anon moonbat,
You don't want a second viable party unless it looks like the Democrat party.
You think that a Palin movement would go nowhere?
Well then why spend your precious time trying to attack the very idea? Just let it shrivel on the vine.
Why? Because you know that she has some appeal to the electorate. If she did not you would not be wasting your time.
There have been other surveys that showed that she gained 3 to 5% for John McCain.
McCain was a dud and the election would have been a blowout if Palin was not on the ticket.
Romney was a loser of a candidate who with his millions never won a convincing victory in the primaries. You KNOW that he would have less cross-over appeal than a Palin candidacy would.
Jindal is at least as strong (if not stronger) religious conservative who will surely be attacked by the press once he starts gaining traction. And if he does not do something to build a well of fans then he will not be able to sustain the unfair attacks that are sure to come.
Huckabee? You want to go there?
Please... Spare us the faux attempts at seeking bipartisanship.
In four years we will be looking for a big departure from the Obama administration or we won't. And Palin could provide that departure.
Of course the partisans such as yourself will never go for it. But that's ok we don't need you just like you don't need me.
yip yip
"Why? Because you know that she has some appeal to the electorate."
She has appeal to the hard-core Republican "base" (roughly 30% of the electorate, tops) and that's all. The quandary you Republicans are in is that the party's base has veered so far right that it's out of touch with most of America. But because you only read and listen to media that reinforce your opinions (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter etc.) and reject all the other media as "liberal" you don't understand this; you continue to think the "base" is "the real America." It ain't. It's a small and shrinking minority.
"There have been other surveys that showed that she gained 3 to 5% for John McCain."
Really? Where? What group was the gain in -- voters in general, registered Republicans, evangelicals, who? Do you have any links? (I know, you're going to tell me you "don't have time" to look them up.)
"McCain was a dud and the election would have been a blowout if Palin was not on the ticket."
Earth to Coyote: The election WAS a blowout because of many factors, one of which was Palin. Both the candidate herself and McCain's sloppy method of selecting her cost him votes.
Imagine what a blowout it would have been if the Democrats had nominated a white guy named "Bill Smith" instead of a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama.
I see Coyote's spin. Anyone who supports Republicans that don't meet his social conservative litmus test is, by definition, a Democrat.
My good reasons for opposing Palin are two-fold:
1) She is a puppet.
2) She is a right wing ideologue, not a conservative.
Folks like yourself and Palin have narrowed the GOP's tent until it has become an electoral minority. In a very important sense, YOU are the biggest problem facing those of us who actually want the Republican Party to start winning elections.
Wingnut:
How about the tolerant Democrats who hung Sarah Palin in effigy last month?
If you want to talk about pride, you'd do well to examine the conduct of your own, first.
"I'm also still wondering when the moonbats are going to start apologizing for swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the whole "trooper-gate" story?"
===
How about that idiotic Lewis and Clark Law professor Jack Bogdanski who still thinks that Trig is not her child, and that the pregnant daughter is faking it?
I mean, did not Jack Bogdanski not make the biggest fool of himself as King of the Moonbats?
I vote Jack Bogdanski into the Oregon Hall of Fools, right next to Tonya Harding and Oregon's Pregnant Man.
Palin came into the race as a relative unknown. Only the most die hard of die hard of die hards knew who she was.
So, by the time she was added to the ticket, her time was rather limited to "let people get to know her" prior to the election.
I'm not fully on board to the idea of her running in 2012 (tho I do like the sound of a Palin/Jindal ticket). But I also think that her national presence will really develop over the next couple of years and it will be harder to dismiss her.
On the upside, regarding Jindal, when the MSM starts evicerating him the Republicans can play the Obama card of racism AND tack on a new one "xenophobia". :)
Max: You cite one incident directed against Palin; there have been dozens of death threats against Obama -- more than against any other president in modern times, as the story says, and he was elected less than two weeks ago. I understand that these wackos do not reflect the attitude of all or most Republicans. But the negative, hateful tone of the Republican campaign -- calling Obama a socialist and a communist, saying he palled around with terrorists, insinuating he is a Muslim -- inflamed the passions of the wackos and the Republican Party will not be able to dodge the blame if, God forbid, something happens to Obama.
Anon 3:23 - Oh please. Can't you just stop blaming Republicans for everything that has happened and might happen that you don't like? What a bore.
George Will wrote today on ibdeditorials.com that our federal government is all about spread-the-wealth socialism, D's and R's included. So own up to the fact that Obama is a socialist. Just about everyone in D.C. is a socialist.
You ought to defend socialism, not Obama. And quit picking on the powerless rank-and-file anti-socialists. Democrats and other socialists run our federal government.
But for the last 2 years Democrats have been in the congressional majority. If you think the economy was better during the last 2 years than in the prior 6 years, you're gonna love the next 4 years.
P.S. Stop blaming the powerless. It's no way to run a majority.
"If you think the economy was better during the last 2 years than in the prior 6 years, you're gonna love the next 4 years."
It wasn't. But it was a hell of a lot better from 1992 through 2000 (the Clinton years) than it has been at any time in the past eight years since Gee Dumbya and the Republican wrecking crew took over.
I guess I kind of agree with you that Democrats and Republicans both believe in a form of socialism, though. Republicans support socialism for the rich and Democrats support socialism for the middle class. It seems a large majority of American voters prefer the latter.
By what standard could one say that GOP corporate-welfare socialism is either better or worse than Democrat economic-justice socialism?
In fact, Dems practice corporate-welfare socialism just fine and the GOP is attempting to learn economic-justice socialism. So anon 5:10, you present a false choice and that hurts your argument.
'Socialism for the middle class' makes no sense. If you rob from the rich you can give to the poor. But there's not enough to be able to share with the middle class. So to do what you suggest means you have to rob from the middle class to give to the middle class. Good luck sustaining that scheme.
Coyote, I understand what you're saying about Sarah Palin. She's your favorite right now. Four years is a long time. I just don't have a favorite for 2012 right now.
Based on what I've been reading and watching, I predict yet another battle royale at the national level between the Rockefeller and Reagan wings of the Republican Party. It has to take place, or we'll be lost in the wilderness for 8 or more years.
"By what standard could one say that GOP corporate-welfare socialism is either better or worse than Democrat economic-justice socialism?"
The Republican variety is worse because it enriches the rich at the expense of everybody else. It's Robin Hood in reverse. Republicans denounce "redistribution of wealth" but they have been systematically redistributing wealth UPWARD for 30 years.
BTW before you accuse me of being a welfare bum who doesn't want to work, I'm in the top 5 percent for family income. I oppose Republican tax and economic policies because in the long run they are bad for the economy (as we are now seeing) and bad for all Americans.
7:03 - What you term the "Republican variety" is both a GOP and a Dem variety. In fact, Dems do better with big business lobbyists and donors and with Wall Street. Obama included. So you either have it half-wrong or backwards.
There is no difference, morally, in stealing from certain people instead of others ... or giving away the stolen goods to certain people instead of others.
It's all thievery, no matter how you slice it. Our constitutions and criminal justice systems are designed to limit and prevent such behavior.
It's becoming clear that we now live in a post-constitutional era. You get to have it your way for a while. Unfortunately you also get to impose it on the rest of us.
Bob Canfield - The social conservatives are NOT Reagan Republicans. They were a part of Reagan's coalition, but in no way were they the dominant player.
I voted for Reagan and Bush I, then Clinton, then Bush II. In 2004, I didn't vote for either Bush or for Kerry, and in 2008, I re-registered as an Independent and voted for Obama.
No way in hell am I going to vote for Palin, nor any other candidate that the Jim Dobson wing of the Republican Party anoints.
Anyone who thinks that the GOP can win elections without people like me are fooling themselves.
This is not nearly as complicated as folks are making it.
Sarah Palin connects with average American families all over America. She's probably better at it than even Reagan was.
She has "it" the way Kennedy and Reagan did. As long as she sticks to her candid and straight forward style, shelikely will be our next President. The real question for me is will it be four years or eight?
As a mainstream Republican, I was energized by Palin's addition to the ticket. To me she represented everyday values, not extreme far right views. I did not plan on voting for McCain before he picked her as his running mate.
I like her more now that it has become so clear how much members of the mainstream media hate her. She scares them, and that's a good thing. Tom Brokaw criticized her for not being part of the elite. Well, I have had it with the elites. Too many rich, well-educated fools in that camp.
Independent Oregonian,Social conservatives, if you are identifying them as the so-called value voters or evangelical Christians, are 25% of the Republican base. You're correct, they were only a part of the Reagan coalition. But Republicans can't win without them. If you're intolerant of them, as you signal you are by calling them "Jim Dobson" wing, it's no surprise you left the Republicans. And yes, we can win without you. Good luck in your endeavors with the leftists.
In retrospect, things would have been better for Sarah Palin and the Republican Party if she were not the VEEP nominee of John McCain ?
Why ? - She would have had more time to improve her resume before showing up in the national spotlight in 2012 rather than showing up in 2008 as she did giving the impression that she was thin on experience and an ideologue, which she did. First impressions are tough to break and she probably won't be perceived much different in 2012 - but will have a chance if she accomplishes notable things between now and then. For all the consternation and chaos her nomination seemed to cause, either Tim Pawlenty or Eric Cantor would have been better for the Republican party in the long run, although either pick would probably not have changed the result.
independent 8:47,
For some reason I don't believe you.
You are liberal through and through and simply playing the role of a liberal troll attempting to change the message.
You are an Obama supporter. So why in the world would we dare take advice from you?
After 4 years of Obama, if he does not turn things around there will be plenty more people to vote for a Sarah Palin.
just to mention it.
We don't really know where Pallin fit with the electorate.
McCain was out spent 2 to 1. His campaign was an unfocused mess. If McCain 08 was ran as tightly as Bush 04 our opinion of Pallin's effect would be radically different.
Don't believe the retrospect predictions. If Karl Rove returned for a candidate like "Kick Ass Sarah" the election will bounce very differently.
We could do a lot worse than Sarah in 2012. She isn't afraid to take on detractors head-on and will have appeal to male, female and minority voters. If she starts crafting her campaign now, she can be ready to take on Obama and his leftist illuminati cronies in 2012.
I am a liberal and am very happy to see your support for Palin and want to wish you and her the very best. If the GOP nominates her in 2012, Obama's reelection will be a cakewalk.
If the GOP wants to assume its failure was because it was not rightwing enough, please keep on that track. By all means avoid taking a look at why your party has virtually disappeared in the Northeast and is dying in the West. Don't question your assumptions and don't ask if you can ever be a national party again while you are on the leash of the religious right racist ideologues. I am thrilled with the way you are going and hope you keep it up.
good luck to you and Sarah. May she be the leading light of the Republican party for decades to come.
Ruth,
What a dudd.
Who said the GOP failur was because it was not "rightwing" enough? Wait let me check to see if I had said that....
..
..
..
Uh...Nope...Didn't say it.
So since I did not say what you are accusing me of, does that make you a liar?
Since your entire erroneous rant was built on that first assumption we are left to conclude that the rest of your vapid screed also falls flat on it's face?
But you do serve the purpose of making me look good.
like fish in a barrel.
yip yip
Dear Yippee,
Since Palin's argument and those of her supporters is that the GOP has not been conservative enough, your allegiance to her puts you in that set.
Now, if you want to try to persuade her to moderate her opinions, well then you won't "let Sarah be Sarah"
RuthAlice,
Continually attempting to perpetuate FALSE stereotypes is lying.
You will be called out on your lying on this blog.
You said that we were arguing that the party was not conservative enough and that is why we lost.
You were called on it. And instead of trying to defend it you decided to toss another false red herring into the mix.
Where was her argument that the GOP was not conservative enough?
Where was the argument of "her supporters" that the GOP was not conservative enough? I should know, I am one and I have not said it.
So... Nothing to back up your false accusations?
I know it is easy to do on the liberal blogs because no one calls you on it. It is the radical echo chamber where lots of false stereotypes live.
yip yip
Post a Comment