# Will 'Going Rogue' help unite



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

will Sarah Palins new book help unite the republican party or will it cause more moderates to leave?


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Neither.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> Neither.


This.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wait 30 or 40 years, pick up an American history book and find the chapter on the extinction of the Republican Party. You'll almost certainly find a photo of Sarah Palin.


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Wait 30 or 40 years, pick up an American history book and find the chapter on the extinction of the Republican Party. You'll almost certainly find a photo of Sarah Palin.


Republican party is already dead, it's the fascist party now and has been for the last 20 years.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Wait 30 or 40 years, pick up an American history book and find the chapter on the extinction of the Republican Party. You'll almost certainly find a photo of Sarah Palin.


thats why i ask the question, her input into the new york 23rd district sure didnt seem to help, infact many bloggers seem to think her input assisted teh democrat to win. her book is her chance to end some of the controversy surrounding her positions and some of the things shes done, by clearing things up she could help unite the party no?


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

sowilson said:


> Republican party is already dead, it's the fascist party now and has been for the last 20 years.


My, how clever!

I don't think Palin or her book will have any effect on membership in the Republican party.

Do you think Obama's presidency will cause moderates to leave the Democratic party?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

mxgreen said:


> My, how clever!
> 
> I don't think Palin or her book will have any effect on membership in the Republican party.
> 
> Do you think Obama's presidency will cause moderates to leave the Democratic party?


his books attracted people to the party


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I agree with previous posters...neither.

Her crappy little memoir is only will only play to her base, help her settle scores and make crates full of money. If she was truly serious about making herself into a thoughtful, serious political figure, she would have taken the high road and written a policy book.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I agree with previous posters...neither.
> 
> Her crappy little memoir is only will only play to her base, help her settle scores and make crates full of money. If she was truly serious about making herself into a thoughtful, serious political figure, she would have taken the high road and written a policy book.


I'm glad she wrote it, if for no other reason than the reviews it's generated. E.g. from Amazon's site:

Ain't afraid of no Vietcong king, November 17, 2009 
By Gen. JC Christian, patriot (Tremonton, UT United States)

There are many kinds of truth. There are truths based on facts, truths based on faith, and truths based on something that sounds as if it should be true (truthiness). Then there's the kind of truth we find in Sarah's book: stories and concepts that become truths simply because she states them. She's a lot like our Lord and Savior, Glen Beck, in that respect. 
Sometimes, she states truths that would be considered ludicrous if uttered by someone else. Her claim that the McCain campaign forced her to spend $150,000 in RNC funds to dress her family in designer clothes is one example of that. Although it might be easier to believe that she acted like a trailer park Zsa Zsa who'd found a credit card left behind at a possum feed, she blames McCain staffers. That's good enough for us, because we have faith; we want to believe her truths. 
But the book isn't perfect. As much as I enjoyed the few short paragraphs in which Mrs Palin laid out her policy objectives, she could have condensed it all into one sentence: "I'm going to grab an Oxo Good Grips Stainless Serving Spatula and go all mavericky on your non-white, non-Christian and non-heterosexual butts." 
The book also fails to expose Mrs. Palin's intellectual brilliance and keen grasp of foreign policy issues. Why wasn't the text of her recent speech in Hong Kong included? Although it remains secret, it's rumored that she viciously rebuked the Vietcong king for his assault on the Empire State Building. That's a speech we've been waiting for nearly 75 years to hear. It's big news and should have been included. 
As you read other reviews of this book, please remember that Mrs. Palin has many enemies who are eager to pan her work. The Palin family's most potent nemesis, Levi's johnston, is no dpubt fully erect and ready to spew globs of misfortune upon them for a third time. And reason-adoring intellectuals are certain to point out that an interview on Good Morning Topeka doesn't qualify as a policy summit in the Far East. 
But a few bad reviews won't stop her. She's seen much worse from her kitchen window. It can't be pleasant to gaze upon Antichristograd every morning as you brew your coffee. 
My review isn't complete, but I think I'll quit anyway, because writing reviews, like governing, is just too darned hard to finish.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

young guy said:


> his books attracted people to the party


Maybe his books did, but his presidency is chasing them away:

https://www.u4prez.com/Blogs/kempite/Gallup-Poll-Conservatives-Outnumber-Liberals-By-Two-To-One.html


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'm glad she wrote it, if for no other reason than the reviews it's generated. E.g. from Amazon's site:
> 
> Ain't afraid of no Vietcong king, November 17, 2009
> By Gen. JC Christian, patriot (Tremonton, UT United States)
> ...


Thanks, Frank. That "review" is truly hysterical in the best sense of the word.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> Her crappy little memoir is only will only play to her base, help her settle scores and make crates full of money. If she was truly serious about making herself into a thoughtful, serious political figure, she would have taken the high road and written a policy book.


Like Obama's policy books?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Sowilison,



sowilson said:


> Republican party is already dead, it's the fascist party now and has been for the last 20 years.


I am going to assume you are not an idiot so what pray tell happened in 1989 that turned the GOP into a fascist party?

Unless you can provide a compelling answer you will render my assumption about you wrong.

Karl


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, Frank. That "review" is truly hysterical in the best sense of the word.


Careful, some people don't do subtle!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> thats why i ask the question, her input into the new york 23rd district sure didnt seem to help, infact many bloggers seem to think her input assisted teh democrat to win. her book is her chance to end some of the controversy surrounding her positions and some of the things shes done, by clearing things up she could help unite the party no?


How about a tangible meaning of "unite the party?" What specific result do you anticipate? Are you asking could she win the nomination?

The GOP has been united by opposing Obama, Holder, Reid, & Pelosi on policies such as Gitmo-to-NY, Healthcare, Cap-n-Tax, Debt & Deficit spending, and Amnesty. It's opposition to these policies that attacts independents and moderates. These policies are too far to the extreme for all except maybe half of the liberal base; so about 17% of likely voters.

The problems start when the GOP Leadership "selects" candidates that don't support these polices opting to pander to unaffiliated liberals (so-called moderates.) Both W and McCain made policy mistakes and paid a price for that in support.

As I see it, she has not staked-out a new policy position which doesn't already exist in the GOP which would attact new people. So at the moment it's exisiting policy + personal appeal. I still prefer Romney.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> In his address to the joint session of Congress, the president lashed out at the charge, made by Palin and others, calling it "a lie, plain and simple."
> 
> When asked by Walters if it was Obama who was lying, Palin said: "He is not lying, in that those two words will not be found in any of those thousands of pages of different variations of the health care bill. No, death panel isn't there. But he's incorrect, and he is disingenuous."


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sar...ama-disingenous-death-panels/story?id=9096647


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> How about a tangible meaning of "unite the party?" What specific result do you anticipate? Are you asking could she win the nomination?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> no not the nomination, but there seems to be a lot of division rigth now, as i mentioned the NY 23 above. also it seems like Crist in FL is coming under attack for being to moderate, can she, perhaps not her book - i probably didnt phrase it right, can she work to keep the moderate republican candidates and voters


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

young guy said:


> ksinc said:
> 
> 
> > How about a tangible meaning of "unite the party?" What specific result do you anticipate? Are you asking could she win the nomination?
> ...


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

ksinc said:


> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sar...ama-disingenous-death-panels/story?id=9096647


Palin used extreme words - "death panel" - to bring attention to expected medical care rationing under Obama's "health care reform". Take a look at this article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

You can also read statements made by Ezekiel Emanuel regarding "end of life" medical decisions.

One might say that the propaganda to cause acceptance of the rationing of medical care has begun:

https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=adQFg3E5jiDc


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Until about two years ago I identified myself as a supporter of the Republican Party, though already at that time I was fed up with what I felt was a strong current of anti-intellectualism strongly on the upswing in the GOP (the silly opposition to evolutionary theory being one of the more visible facets of the trend.)

Nevertheless, I was still - grudgingly - in favor of McCain as the presidential race heated up in '08. The main feature I liked about McCain was that he did NOT cater heavily to the Christian Right, and I was hopeful that a McCain win might finally demonstrate that Republican candidates didn't *need* Christian conservatives to prevail in an election. Indeed, it would have likely broken the thirty-year-old Christian conservative grip on the GOP... a very happy outcome indeed.

Then the McCain camp had to go and, idiotically, select Sarah Palin as a running mate; when I realized what a joke Palin was, and that the move was a naked attempt to cater to Christian conservatives, I immediately withdrew my support for McCain. Since then, I've finally concluded that the current GOP - religious nutjobs who spend as fast as any Democrat - is not for me.

In fact, I would actually be *embarrassed* to be identified as a Republican nowadays, since it's tantamount to an admission of ignorance and bigotry.

I know quite a few others for whom Palin was the last straw. If the Republican Party actually *embraces* Palin then yes, I think she'll have a very damaging effect on party unity; if nothing else, she'll drive away members who have better than a high school education...

DH


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*It will not matter*

The only people who will read the book are right-wing nut jobs who agree with her, and left-wing nut jobs who want to revel in self-righteous indignation.

Moderates from both sides, and the all important independents, will ignore the book just as they are trying to ignore the media coverage of the book.

What will matter in 2010 and 2012 are jobs, and whichever party/candidate manages to best position themselves as centrists in statewide and national elections.

Naturally, being a centrist will not matter in most Congressional districts, where the lines have been drawn by the parties to insure the safety of extremist candidates.


----------



## Kosh Naranek (Apr 24, 2008)

The Republican party is in sad shape. 

Ashcroft lost to a corpse; a New York seat held by a Republican since the end of the Civil War turns Democratic; the last Republican seat in New England (!) goes Democratic last November; etc. Check the electoral map from the last election and you find McCain's vote base was the deep south, the rural midwest, and much of the Black Helicopter part of the northern Rockies. The same goes for the distribution of Republican majorities in the House.

You can't build a national party upon a base considered by some to be populated by crackers, rubes, and whackos.

While far from being a Republican I am sorry to see what was once a great party sink to its present condition.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> Until about two years ago I identified myself as a supporter of the Republican Party, though already at that time I was fed up with what I felt was a strong current of anti-intellectualism strongly on the upswing in the GOP (the silly opposition to evolutionary theory being one of the more visible facets of the trend.)
> 
> *Nevertheless, I was still - grudgingly - in favor of McCain as the presidential race heated up in '08. The main feature I liked about McCain was that he did NOT cater heavily to the Christian Right*, and I was hopeful that a McCain win might finally demonstrate that Republican candidates didn't *need* Christian conservatives to prevail in an election. Indeed, it would have likely broken the thirty-year-old Christian conservative grip on the GOP... a very happy outcome indeed.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how you grudgingly prefered McCain over Obama for the stated reason. Neither Obama nor McCain cater to the Christian Right. What did you dislike about Obama that was only barely superceded by your dislike of Christians?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Neither Obama nor McCain cater to the Christian Right.


Uh, isn't this thread about Sarah Palin?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> -religious nutjobs who spend as fast as any Democrat - is not for me.


No, that's spend at least 1/3 as quickly.

Not as quickly.

Still, 1/3 is too much!!

Palin neither intimidates or threatens me.

I'm amused by those who are.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, isn't this thread about Sarah Palin?


Uh, don't you need to address your question to Dhaller? And others? Or do you only like off-topic comments that bash Republicans and Christians, but not the follow-ups? If you are going to play the police - start in your own backyard...


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

sowilson said:


> Republican party is already dead, it's the fascist party now and has been for the last 20 years.


If you really believed that, you wouldn't have said it. In fascist countries, you wind up in jail for saying or writing something like that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Palin neither intimidates or threatens me.
> I'm amused by those who are.


It is amusing. They treat Palin like they treat W. Can't make up their minds whether he is a rube or an evil genius? "Mis-underestimated again!"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> If you really believed that, you wouldn't have said it. In fascist countries, you wind up in jail for saying or writing something like that.


Cheney is probably already on his way ...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Uh, don't you need to address your question to Dhaller? And others? Or do you only like off-topic comments that bash Republicans and Christians, but not the follow-ups? If you are going to play the police - start in your own backyard...


The question is to you. I'm wondering why you think John McCain doesn't pander to the Christian Right, in light of his choice for a running mate.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DHaller said:


> Nevertheless, I was still - grudgingly - in favor of McCain as the presidential race heated up in '08. The main feature I liked about McCain was that he *did NOT cater heavily* *to* the Christian Right





ksinc said:


> I don't understand how you grudgingly prefered McCain over Obama for the stated reason. Neither Obama nor McCain *cater to* the Christian Right. What did you dislike about Obama that was only barely superceded by your dislike of Christians?





FrankDC said:


> The question is to you.* I'm wondering why you think John McCain doesn't pander to the Christian Right*, in light of his choice for a running mate.


I inherited Dhaller's premise that McCain doesn't *"cater"* to the Christian Right inquiring as to how if this was not a difference between O and M how did he grudgingly prefer M.

As for *pandering* ...

_My_ opinion is McCain chose Palin as the lesser of two "*panders*" - the other being Huckabee.

He certainly couldn't pick 'the Mormon' after bashing him in the race (or actually having his Mother do it.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I inherited Dhaller's premise that McCain doesn't "cater heavily" to the Christian Right.
> 
> As for pandering ...
> 
> ...


My contention (which may be wrong) is that it's counterproductive to pander to the Christian Right at all. Many elections of the past 30+ years, especially at the national level have been decided not by Republican and Democratic bases, they've been decided by independents and uncommitteds.

Sincere question here, and I'm not leading you to any specific answer, but do you think a McCain/Gingrich ticket would have fared better than McCain/Palin?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> My contention (which may be wrong) is that it's counterproductive to pander to the Christian Right at all. Many elections of the past 30+ years, especially at the national level have been decided not by Republican and Democratic bases, they've been decided by independents and uncommitteds.
> 
> Sincere question here, and I'm not leading you to any specific answer, but do you think a McCain/Gingrich ticket would have fared better than McCain/Palin?


I agree about the independents and uncommitteds, but not in every state. For instance, Senator Landrieu in Louisiana has had to move further and further to the right to stay in office, in a state that was until Katrina very competitive for Democrats, and the reason has been abortion. Even amongst Democrats, the majority of Louisiana voters are opposed to it. They aren't the Christian Right, but the often ignored Christian Left.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> My contention (which may be wrong) is that it's counterproductive to pander to the Christian Right at all. Many elections of the past 30+ years, especially at the national level have been decided not by Republican and Democratic bases, they've been decided by independents and uncommitteds.
> 
> Sincere question here, and I'm not leading you to any specific answer, but do you think a McCain/Gingrich ticket would have fared better than McCain/Palin?


Well, pandering is worse than catering. So, if you are pandering you are catering, but only to weakness. As a political strategy I think pandering has been shown to be successful or "productive", but that's not really a good thing. Both parties pander to their extreme bases. You have to lock them in then go after independents. McCain was correctly identified as a person that appealed to independents, but he could not lock down the base. Obama did both and won. Now he is disappointing the extreme base of his party which he pandered to. "c'est la politique." Reagan, Bush, and Bush all pandered to the Christian Right too. And won. McCain was just so obviously insincere about it.

No; I think most people vote the top of the ticket and McCain + _any other live body_ would have lost by similar margins.


----------



## theCardiffGiant (Sep 16, 2007)

Blah blah blah. Rabble rabble! ::snark::


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The conventional wisdom is that your VP choice can only hurt you. I.e. voters concentrate on the top of the ticket unless the VP really offends them. This is probably mostly right. On the Dem side I think Biden played this role perfectly. The only people he offended were those who wouldn't vote Dem anyway. Palin was a little more complicated. I doubt that she changed many votes at all, but she probably caused some potential McCain voters to stay home and others to actually show up. On balance, she almost certainly helped him. McCain lost the moment the economy tanked big time, and no way the incumbant party doesn't get punished for that. But for that he quite possibly could have won, which is actually remarkable given that usually moderates and independents tire after 8 years of a party in power and vote for change just on vague general principle. The GOP nominated the one guy who could possibly have countered that, since he had unusual credibility among the moderates/independents, and then complemented it with a VP candidate that would bring the base out. Might well have worked but for the economic meltdown.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Regardless of whether you think she helped or hurt McCain in 2008 - it is clear that she is both, very popular with Republicans - and very unpopular with Democrats and independents.


https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain


_Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable. _

_When asked to choose among some of the GOP's top names for their choice for the party's 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%. Three other sitting governors - Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota - all pull low single-digit support. 
_
_The key for the 44-year-old Palin will be whether she can broaden her base of support. An Election Day survey found that *81% of Democrats and, more importantly, 57% of unaffiliated voters had an unfavorable view of her.

*_IMO. this makes here completely unelectable in the general election.


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

I generally don't agree much with David Brooks, but his characterization of her as a "joke" and a "talk show host" are spot on. As I get older I am getting more conservative. Ms Palin has ensured that the Republican Party is no place for an "intellectual" (read college degree) like me who enjoys big cities!

I've lived in Italy and now live in Australia and I have to say I never feel embarassed to be an American but the fact that Sarah Palin gets media/political attention leaves me with a lot of explaining to do. That's bad considering Italy's prime minister is like Bacchus...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SeptemberSun said:


> I generally don't agree much with David Brooks, but his characterization of her as a "joke" and a "talk show host" are spot on. As I get older I am getting more conservative. Ms Palin has ensured that the Republican Party is no place for an "intellectual" (read college degree) like me who enjoys big cities!
> 
> I've lived in Italy and now live in Australia and I have to say I never feel embarassed to be an American but the fact that Sarah Palin gets media/political attention leaves me with a lot of explaining to do. That's bad considering Italy's prime minister is like Bacchus...


I've never been embarassed to be an American either, but as I read more posts like this one I am getting close.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

Palin comes off as such a complete lightweight that I am amazed she was ever considered at all, and further amazed that she was selected as the VP candidate. 

Choosing her as the running mate certainly was an attempt to gain votes from the Christian right, which I think everyone recognizes as a socio-political movement that is distinct from Christianity the religion. If I heard someone say "I can't stand those neolithic morons on the Christian right" I would not consider the speaker to have said anything specifically offensive to persons who profess the Christian faith.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> The conventional wisdom is that your VP choice can only hurt you. I.e. voters concentrate on the top of the ticket unless the VP really offends them. This is probably mostly right. On the Dem side I think Biden played this role perfectly. The only people he offended were those who wouldn't vote Dem anyway. Palin was a little more complicated. I doubt that she changed many votes at all, but she probably caused some potential McCain voters to stay home and others to actually show up. On balance, she almost certainly helped him. McCain lost the moment the economy tanked big time, and no way the incumbant party doesn't get punished for that. But for that he quite possibly could have won, which is actually remarkable given that usually moderates and independents tire after 8 years of a party in power and vote for change just on vague general principle. The GOP nominated the one guy who could possibly have countered that, since he had unusual credibility among the moderates/independents, and then complemented it with a VP candidate that would bring the base out. Might well have worked but for the economic meltdown.


At least among my friends, Palin did offend quite a few of them, including many Republicans I know. Many made the same comments, that she wasn't qualified, that the choice indicated a lack of judgment on McCain's part, etc. But if by 'economic meltdown' you're referring to the Bush-Paulson extortion last October, I agree completely with you.


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

ksinc said:


> I've never been embarassed to be an American either, but as I read more posts like this one I am getting close.


Starting to feel embarrassed that other Americans voice opinions that you don't agree with. That, indeed, is the very definition of un-American.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> At least among my friends, Palin did offend quite a few of them, including many Republicans I know. Many made the same comments, that she wasn't qualified, that the choice indicated a lack of judgment on McCain's part, etc. But if by 'economic meltdown' you're referring to the Bush-Paulson extortion last October, I agree completely with you.


hysterical again!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think the criticism of Palin is 90% unfounded, unfair, and/or sexist in the way the media treats anyone from a "victim" class who isn't a Democrat; but the last 10% is enough for me to wish she'd just go away.

That said it's better to get all this infighting out of the way now. I'd hate to have the NY-23 error repeated 30 times next year.


----------



## mbebeau (Feb 6, 2009)

Regardless if it helps or hurts the party, it certainly helps Sarah Palin. She gets free advertising, money, and gains SOME credibility as having the ability to write.

Now, I don't see how she can possibly be a real contender in any major national election as the top of the ticket. In fact, she wouldn't even get through the primary. Mitt Romney would eat her alive in a real debate and Mike Huckabee would end up taking the Christian right away from her.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SeptemberSun said:


> Starting to feel embarrassed that other Americans voice opinions that you don't agree with. That, indeed, is the very definition of un-American.


Which is why I am embarassed by your actions; made worse after your comment about intellectualism in the GOP and "college degrees."


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Which is why I am embarassed by your actions; made worse after your comment about intellectualism in the GOP and "college degrees."


True or False:

Many in the base of the Republican Party have used or continue to use rhetoric putting down folks in big cities on the east coast for being educated latte drinking liberal elites.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

SeptemberSun said:


> True or False:
> 
> Many in the base of the Republican Party have used or continue to use rhetoric putting down folks in big cities on the east coast for being educated latte drinking liberal elites.


And yet, do not forget, it's a far more intelligent crowd than those latte drinking liberals that run the party. Tell the pinstripes on Wall Street or the Roves of the world that they are dumber than some new age yuppie in the village. As a proud Republican, I am firmly assured of the role of intelligence and, indeed, old world tradition in the GOP. Say what you want about the Kennedy's and their ilk, but the last time I was in old elitist abodes like the vineyard, Potomac, and Annapolis bay, Republicans still stood strong.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

mxgreen said:


> young guy said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me there is a lot of division among Democrats right now. They control both houses yet they are having difficulty passing legislation that is clearly important to Obama's presidency.
> ...


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

Henry346 said:


> And yet, do not forget, it's a far more intelligent crowd than those latte drinking liberals that run the party. Tell the pinstripes on Wall Street or the Roves of the world that they are dumber than some new age yuppie in the village. As a proud Republican, I am firmly assured of the role of intelligence and, indeed, old world tradition in the GOP. Say what you want about the Kennedy's and their ilk, but the last time I was in old *elitist abodes like the vineyard, Potomac, and Annapolis bay, Republicans still stood strong*.


Well said, and a fine point.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I don't understand how you grudgingly prefered McCain over Obama for the stated reason. Neither Obama nor McCain cater to the Christian Right. What did you dislike about Obama that was only barely superceded by your dislike of Christians?


In my view, Obama simply didn't have the kind of executive experience needed to lead a nation, which left either McCain, or one of the "not a chance" candidates like Ron Paul.

So, McCain.

DH


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

NoVaguy said:


> I think the default for 2010 is that the Dems will lose 20-25 seats - at least, according to history, they should. *So anything less than that is a Dem win, anything more is a GOP win.* If the Dems lose less than that, and stay over 230 or 235, the GOP really has problems. Projecting the Senate is a harder task this far out; anything from +/- 3 or 4 seats is possible.


So, the spin begins already... and here we were led to believe that the Republican party was/is dead and you are already conceding 20-25 Democrats being thrown out of office "according to history"... "a default"? ...and it's a win. Spin spin spin.

I'm sure I've been reading that Obama and the Dems had just re-written _history_ and the Republicans were all but on the verge of extinction!

I do agree with you, though... the Dems will lose a lot of seats, not because of history, however, but because of bad policy decisions.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

SeptemberSun said:


> Well said, and a fine point.


Thank you, although I must inevitably yield that the classic North Eastern old money brooks brother Republican has faired poorly in light of the evangelical resurgence. Although I still love both Party and Country (or at least the portions I rub shoulders with), I am more than a little dismayed by the vocal televangelists who certainly are a poor successor for a great person like Graham as well as by the populist pandering from the same party that produced the likes of "cool" Coolidge or "America's business is General Motors" Eisenhower .


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

Moderates are what Obama is shedding now by the ton. Evidenced by the last round of elections as well as recent polls. The Independents are fleeing. As for Palin's book, while its a sales phenomenon that hit Number 1 on Amazon before even being released I dont see a single book having any effect on the composition of either party. It is interesting to note how the liberal media are absolutely terrified of this woman, lambasting her without end. This is the greatest free press she could possibly hope for so she should thank them for it. Its moving even more copies of her book. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up outselling both of Obama's.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Relayer said:


> So, the spin begins already... and here we were led to believe that the Republican party was/is dead and you are already conceding 20-25 Democrats being thrown out of office "according to history"... "a default"? ...and it's a win. Spin spin spin.
> 
> I'm sure I've been reading that Obama and the Dems had just re-written _history_ and the Republicans were all but on the verge of extinction!
> 
> I do agree with you, though... the Dems will lose a lot of seats, not because of history, however, but because of bad policy decisions.


Spin? Look more like lack of knowledge about history on your part. Are you familiar with 1958? 1966? 1974? 1978? 1982? 1994? 2006?

Absent something unusual (such as an ongoing impeachment or impending war, hence 1998 and 2002), the party out of the White House *routinely* wins double digit seats in an offyear election.

edit: Since 1958, the party which has held the white house in off-year elections has *lost *double digit seats 8 times, with six of those being over 25 seats, and has only picked up seats twice (1998 - 5 seats; 2002 - 8 seats) And of course, the 2002 elections, like all elections in years ending with "2", was a redistricting election.


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

Henry346 said:


> Thank you, although I must inevitably yield that the classic North Eastern old money brooks brother Republican has faired poorly in light of the evangelical resurgence. Although I still love both Party and Country (or at least the portions I rub shoulders with), I am more than a little dismayed by the vocal televangelists who certainly are a poor successor for a great person like Graham as well as by the populist pandering from the same party that produced the likes of "cool" Coolidge or "America's business is General Motors" Eisenhower .


Couldn't agree more, it really is too bad...


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

deanayer said:


> Moderates are what Obama is shedding now by the ton. Evidenced by the last round of elections as well as recent polls. The Independents are fleeing. As for Palin's book, while its a sales phenomenon that hit Number 1 on Amazon before even being released I dont see a single book having any effect on the composition of either party. It is interesting to note how the liberal media are absolutely terrified of this woman, lambasting her without end. This is the greatest free press she could possibly hope for so she should thank them for it. Its moving even more copies of her book. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up outselling both of Obama's.


It's number 1 because it's been prebought in order to pump up the numbers. An unusual number of those will be remaindered and/or sold for $3 or $5.

See here: - which is a clip of an ad on Fox news offering it for $4.97 plus shipping. That is ridiculously cheap for a hardback book right off the presses - you have to wonder if they're taking a loss to inflate the sale numbers.


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

deanayer said:


> Moderates are what Obama is shedding now by the ton. Evidenced by the last round of elections as well as recent polls. The Independents are fleeing. As for Palin's book, while its a sales phenomenon that hit Number 1 on Amazon before even being released I dont see a single book having any effect on the composition of either party. It is interesting to note how the liberal media are absolutely terrified of this woman, lambasting her without end. This is the greatest free press she could possibly hope for so she should thank them for it. Its moving even more copies of her book. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up outselling both of Obama's.


Do you think that a lot of people who are terrified of her are in fact afraid that they may like her? I think there is a lot of that going on. I was afraid of G. Bush because I was afraid I would like him, which I did (as a person, not as much as a president).


----------



## jasonbourne (Dec 10, 2007)

*So what if the Republican Party Dies*

The Political Parties are a reflection of our political spectrum, but they neither encompass nor span the possible. Our electoral system makes it almost impossible for a third party to win. But major parties have died before, (remember the wigs?). What will happen is that the amorphous blob that is the democratic party will sway rightward. What made the Republican party effective is that they had a strong coalition of Christian and Economic conservatives. A coalition that Regan brought together. While this is an odd combination and contradictory in many ways as classic liberal ideas which are the basis of what we now refer to as economic conservatives do not have much in common with the religious conservative. While this may seem like a strange coalition, it is down right doctrinaire compared to what is called the democratic party. I am not exactly sure what the democratic party believes in other than: "What do you want us to believe". This is a party that is suppose to be for women's rights that just passed a healthcare bill that bans the federal government from paying for abortions.

I think it is very possible that we are seeing the end of the Republican party. And maybe that is a good thing for the conservative movement. It is never a good sign when the CEO of GE, a lifelong Republican states "We are all democrats now". I say that it is a good thing the GOP in its current form to go away as the brand has been so tarnished that something else has to come to the fore. Maybe it will be Libertarians, maybe A green party will emerge out of the democratic party leaving the dems on the right. Who knows. All I know is that if Sarah Palin is the candidate for President in 2 years, it will be dead party walking. Populism, be it by Palin types or Lou Dobbs, is a menace to our democracy. It is a menace to the Right, in the form of populist economics, it is a menace to the Left as it brandishes nativist policies that tarnish our liberties.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

It's amazing how easily people put Palin down. I suspect that she is more accomplished than anyone on this board. Does anyone really believe that they have a chance of being elected governor of any state? Does anyone believe that they have the poise or capacity to perform under pressure like she did at the Republican convention? I have no idea how smart she is but she is smart enough. Educational pedigree is overrated.

I am a conservative. Palin is not my choice as the Republican nominee in 2012. But if she is the Republican nominee I will vote for her.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> In my view, Obama simply didn't have the kind of executive experience needed to lead a nation, which left either McCain, or one of the "not a chance" candidates like Ron Paul.
> 
> So, McCain.
> 
> DH


Thanks for the reply.

Palin has more 'executive experience' then the rest you mentioned combined. Shouldn't that have bolstered your support for him on the grounds you cited?

What didn't you like about Romney?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SeptemberSun said:


> True or False:
> 
> Many in the base of the Republican Party have used or continue to use rhetoric putting down folks in big cities on the east coast for being educated latte drinking liberal elites.


False.

It's not educated. It's elitist; and unjustified at that. Since you are an "intellectual" with "a college degree" we trust you to know the difference.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mxgreen said:


> It's amazing how easily people put Palin down. I suspect that she is more accomplished than anyone on this board. Does anyone really believe that they have a chance of being elected governor of any state? Does anyone believe that they have the poise or capacity to perform under pressure like she did at the Republican convention? I have no idea how smart she is but she is smart enough. Educational pedigree is overrated.
> 
> I am a conservative. Palin is not my choice as the Republican nominee in 2012. But if she is the Republican nominee I will vote for her.


Excellent. Same here, unless Obama loses a primary challenge then I with-hold judgment.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> False.
> 
> It's not educated. It's elitist; and unjustified at that. Since you are an "intellectual" with "a college degree" we trust you to know the difference.


Agreed. I know educated people and I know learned people. Sadly, one has little to do with the other.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mxgreen said:


> It's amazing how easily people put Palin down. I suspect that she is more accomplished than anyone on this board. Does anyone really believe that they have a chance of being elected governor of any state? Does anyone believe that they have the poise or capacity to perform under pressure like she did at the Republican convention? I have no idea how smart she is but she is smart enough. Educational pedigree is overrated.
> 
> I am a conservative. Palin is not my choice as the Republican nominee in 2012. But if she is the Republican nominee I will vote for her.


Perform under pressure? She resigned her job as governor, and you're praising her for reading a convention speech that was written entirely by Matt Scully. Wow.

Did you know Scully wrote that speech a full week before he even knew who McCain's VP pick was going to be?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Henry346 said:


> I am more than a little dismayed by the vocal televangelists who certainly are a poor successor for a great person like *Graham* as well as by the populist pandering from the same party that produced the likes of "cool" *Coolidge* or "America's business is General Motors" *Eisenhower* .


Where do you live, 1954? Two of your heros are dead, the third almost. What about the other Republican hacks between them and now, they get a pass?

And it's _what's good for GM is good for America,_ and you actually like that quote?​


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Palin has more 'executive experience' then the rest you mentioned combined. Shouldn't that have bolstered your support for him on the grounds you cited?
> 
> What didn't you like about Romney?


Palin simply seemed too stupid to me, executive experience notwithstanding; she's also simply too conservative.

I just don't have a good reason not to like Romney... but I don't. By the numbers, he was probably a good candidate, but somehow I just didn't *like* him. I thought he was better after he was out of the race... so maybe I'll look at him again if there's a redux 

DH


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Speaking of education and learning, or lack of either, our long-silent fellow forum member Lushington has part of a quote in his signature that offers a possible explanation of the entire Palin phenomenon. What momentarily seems a slur on the heartland has, upon reflection, qualities that de Tocqueville might well admire. Here is the full quote:"Sports, politics and religion are the three passions of the badly educated. They are the Midwest's open sores. Ugly to see, a source of constant discontent, they sap the body's strength. Appalling quantities of money, time and energy are wasted on them. The rural mind is narrow, passionate, and reckless on these matters. Greed, however shortsighted and direct, will not alone account for it. I have known men, for instance, who for years have voted squarely against their interests. Nor have I ever noticed that their surly Christian views prevented them from urging forward the smithereening, say, of Russia, China, Cuba, or Korea. And they tend to back their country like they back their local team: they have a fanatical desire to win; yelling is their forte; and if things go badly, they are inclined to sack the coach. All in all, then, Birch is a good name. It stands for the bigot's stick, the wild-child-tamer's cane."

--from _In the Heart of the Heart of the Country_ by William H. Gass.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> Palin simply seemed too stupid to me, executive experience notwithstanding; she's also simply too conservative.
> 
> I just don't have a good reason not to like Romney... but I don't. By the numbers, he was probably a good candidate, but somehow I just didn't *like* him. I thought he was better after he was out of the race... so maybe I'll look at him again if there's a redux
> 
> DH


Yeah; I've heard that a lot. Some people think he seems "plastic." I can see how they see that flaw in him. I thought his relationship with his wife seemed more real than anyone else's that was in the running. That balanced out any problems I had with him. As you said "by the numbers." On paper he seems great, but except for one speech he's not really inspiring. I still think he would do a good job. I'm not really looking to be inspired. If I'm encouraged to chant a guy's name then I think he's a bad candidate.


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

ksinc said:


> False.
> 
> It's not educated. It's elitist; and unjustified at that. Since you are an "intellectual" with "a college degree" we trust you to know the difference.


The quotes around the word "intellectual" in my original comment were used for a point - to stress that the rhetoric categorised people like me (someone with a college degree and from the east coast) as intellectuals and elites.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Quay said:


> SWhat momentarily seems a slur on the heartland has, upon reflection, qualities that de Tocqueville might well admire.


Nope, it's just a slur.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Perform under pressure? She resigned her job as governor, and you're praising her for reading a convention speech that was written entirely by Matt Scully. Wow.
> 
> Did you know Scully wrote that speech a full week before he even knew who McCain's VP pick was going to be?


Oh, Frank, you've done it, haven't you? You've completely cut the legs out from anyone who suggests that Palin has accomplished anything - her resignation doesn't just negate her run for and election as governor (initially without the support of her own party), her accomplishments as governor, her giving a voice to the political views of a great many in this country but IT (the resignation) becomes her defining act. Brilliant.

As far as your comments regarding the speech, I would really like to see you deliver - not just "read" - a speech in front of 30,000 people, with a worldwide audience in excess of 100 million people - knowing that your future, not just your political future, is on the line. Many people could have read the speech, very few could have electrified the way Palin did. See, for example, McCain's own speech at the convention; people were snoring in the aisles.

You really are grasping (and perhaps, gasping) for straws when you state that Scully wrote the speech one week before he knew who the VP choice would be. What difference does that make? Are you saying that the fact that the speech was written before Palin was picked made it easier for Palin to deliver?

By the way I don't believe that Scully wrote the speech before he even knew who McCain's VP would be. Here is the text of the speech:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-rnc-conventio_n_123703.html

(I have a snide comment that it's a good thing McCain picked Palin because that "hockey mom" and "lipstick" comment in the speech really wouldn't have worked for anyone else, but I will save that for another post.)

I remember, a few weeks after Palin was picked, Mat Damon, the great thinker of our day, saying,

"It's like a really bad Disney movie. You know? The hockey mom, 'Oh I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska,' and she's the PRESIDENT, and it's like she's facing down Vladamir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd, it's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. It's a terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. I need to know if she really think that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes."

Here is the link to the above quote: https://askville.amazon.com/SimilarQuestions.do?req=Matt+Damon+demanding+answer+Palin+dinosaurs

I suspect that is how many men view Palin (by the way, apologies if you are really "Frances in DC", not "Francis in DC"). They have utter disdain for her - her intellect, her accomplishments - and they do FEAR her. They fear that she might actually become their president.

The funny thing is, who really feels confident with Obama? Oh, he can face down interim Hondouran president Roberto Micheletti, and perhaps Netanyahu. But who has confidence in Obama in a matchup against Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, the list goes on? I actually have more confidence in Palin to protect this country's interests.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Quay said:


> Speaking of education and learning, or lack of either, our long-silent fellow forum member Lushington has part of a quote in his signature that offers a possible explanation of the entire Palin phenomenon. What momentarily seems a slur on the heartland has, upon reflection, qualities that de Tocqueville might well admire. Here is the full quote:"Sports, politics and religion are the three passions of the badly educated. They are the Midwest's open sores. Ugly to see, a source of constant discontent, they sap the body's strength. Appalling quantities of money, time and energy are wasted on them. The rural mind is narrow, passionate, and reckless on these matters. Greed, however shortsighted and direct, will not alone account for it. I have known men, for instance, who for years have voted squarely against their interests. Nor have I ever noticed that their surly Christian views prevented them from urging forward the smithereening, say, of Russia, China, Cuba, or Korea. And they tend to back their country like they back their local team: they have a fanatical desire to win; yelling is their forte; and if things go badly, they are inclined to sack the coach. All in all, then, Birch is a good name. It stands for the bigot's stick, the wild-child-tamer's cane."
> 
> --from _In the Heart of the Heart of the County_ by William H. Gass.​


I don't know if anyone else will find this funny, but I did: The actual name of the book is _In the Heart of the Heart of the Country_. I'm sure it was a typing error but, to me, substituting _County_ for _Country_ satirizes the book's actual title and sucks the seriousness out of the quoted language - sort of like the mixup regarding the size of the Stonehenge model in _This is Spinal Tap_.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mxgreen said:


> By the way I don't believe that Scully wrote the speech before he even knew who McCain's VP would be.


You'll need to take your disbelief up with Time Magazine.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'd hate to have the NY-23 error repeated 30 times next year.


By error you mean having backed the wrong woman from the begining??

Then I agree.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> By error you mean having backed the wrong woman from the begining??
> 
> Then I agree.


i bet he means a district going to the democrates for the first ime in 150 years


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> i bet he means a district going to the democrates for the first ime in 150 years


Because they backed the wrong woman from the begining??

I agree.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Because they backed the wrong woman from the begining??
> 
> I agree.


do you mean they should have backed hoffmann


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

young guy said:


> do you mean they should have backed hoffmann


Perhaps he means the Republican "bosses" in the district should have conducted a primary rather than merely selecting the nominee and, since they didn't conduct a primary, they shouldn't have selected as the nominee a person who has very little in common with the traditional Republican platform.

The next election is less than a year away. We don't have very long to wait to see if the 2009 results - that is, the election of a Democrat - is a trend or an anomaly.

By the way, the final vote count has not concluded and it appears that the count will be much closer than originally believed. if Hoffman is determined to be the winner, what will the Democrats say then? All their arguments as to why Owens won will be flushed down the toilet and the closeness of the election could surely be attributed to the initial nomination of Scozzafava. Let's see what happens.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

mxgreen said:


> By the way, the final vote count has not concluded and it appears that the count will be much closer than originally believed. if Hoffman is determined to be the winner, what will the Democrats say then? All their arguments as to why Owens won will be flushed down the toilet and the closeness of the election could surely be attributed to the initial nomination of Scozzafava. Let's see what happens.


 Hoffman would have to take over 65 percent of the absentee ballots in order to eclipse Owens. That is NOT going to happen.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mxgreen said:


> Perhaps he means the Republican "bosses" in the district should have conducted a primary rather than merely selecting the nominee and, since they didn't conduct a primary, they shouldn't have selected as the nominee a person who has very little in common with the traditional Republican platform.


Well said.

It appears they got complacent and lazy.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

mxgreen said:


> I don't know if anyone else will find this funny, but I did: The actual name of the book is _In the Heart of the Heart of the Country_. I'm sure it was a typing error....


Yup, a typo, now fixed. Thanks for catching it. I found it funny, too. :icon_smile:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Back to the original question, no I do not think so. She is the darling of many conservatives, the bane of many liberals, but for many moderates the feeling is ???. She is still too much of an unknown.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Quay said:


> Yup, a typo, now fixed. Thanks for catching it. I found it funny, too. :icon_smile:


I wish you hadn't; it was funnier the other way.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

young guy said:


> will Sarah Palins new book help unite the republican party or will it cause more moderates to leave?


It was never intended to be a vehicle for reuniting anything...The book was intended as a means for Sarah Palin to get a lot of things off her chest (return some fire on those taking shots at her) and to make a whole lot of money. She has no intention of running for anything in the future but rather, will dance on the fringe, playing off the instant celebrity resulting from her Vice-Presidential bid and getting rich in the process...walking a path blazed by the likes of Al Gore!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> She has no intention of running for anything in the future but rather, will dance on the fringe, playing off the instant celebrity resulting from her Vice-Presidential bid and getting rich in the process...walking a path blazed by the likes of Al Gore!


Your equating a woman that couldn't even be bothered to finish her first term as governor, with a man that served 24 years in the House, Senate and as VP?

Good comparison.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^No mrkleen, I am not. Rather, I am comparing the situational realities confronting the two, at the point they found it necessary to abandon politics as their primary avocation. They are both rich, or soon to be rich, by playing off the negative fallout of their political adventures.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^No mrkleen, I am not. Rather, I am comparing the situational realities confronting the two, at the point they found it necessary to abandon politics as their primary avocation. They are both rich, or soon to be rich, by playing off the negative fallout of their political adventures.


what negative fallout are you refering to regarding al gore


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Al lost the election but became a much more well-known figure in the process. He has used this fame to publicize his message. In this process, he has become quite wealthy. Because of his additional fame, his book sold more copies than it might otherwise have and I'm sure he gets more for speaking appearances than he would have had he not run for president (and become even more well-known.)

The point is that while Palin's politics are far different from Gore's, she is using the same phenomenon (probably not the best word, but I'm in a hurry; I've got a project to finish.) to become wealthy and to become a more well-publicized politician.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Al lost the election but became a much more well-known figure in the process. He has used this fame to publicize his message. In this process, he has become quite wealthy. Because of his additional fame, his book sold more copies than it might otherwise have and I'm sure he gets more for speaking appearances than he would have had he not run for president (and become even more well-known.)
> 
> The point is that while Palin's politics are far different from Gore's, she is using the same phenomenon (probably not the best word, but I'm in a hurry; I've got a project to finish.) to become wealthy and to become a more well-publicized politician.


Gore's family was wealthy long before Al's book and film work.

Also, at least in my mind there's a huge difference between losing an election, and quitting a job you were elected to perform. It's incredible (and frankly scary) to me that some people would vote for Palin to be our president, if she can't even finish her job as a governor.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I also hope that Palin does not run and is not elected. Your post would be a bit more meaningful if I thought you were as skeptical about those running from the left.

I was no fan of Bush for basically the same reasons although I also question what he did when he was "young and irresponsible" but would not tell us about. (I've played in enough rock bands and had a wild enough younger life where I have a really good idea - - - -)

Palin at least does not have those issues.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I also hope that Palin does not run and is not elected. Your post would be a bit more meaningful if I thought you were as skeptical about those running from the left.
> 
> I was no fan of Bush for basically the same reasons although I also question what he did when he was "young and irresponsible" but would not tell us about. (I've played in enough rock bands and had a wild enough younger life where I have a really good idea - - - -)
> 
> Palin at least does not have those issues.


If you are really interested in learning about Bush when he was a young man you may want to read Fortunate Son by James Hatfield. The complete print run - approximately 50,000 copies - was recalled shortly after publication by the publisher under threat of lawsuit by the Bush camp. The publisher bowed to pressure because the author, unbeknownst to the publisher, had previously been implicated in a murder for hire plot. The author subsequently committed suicide. The book was later published by an independent press. I think the book contains allegations of drug use by Bush and behind the scenes efforts by his father to bury all record of Bush's illegal behavior.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Gore's family was wealthy long before Al's book and film work.
> 
> Also, at least in my mind there's a huge difference between losing an election, and quitting a job you were elected to perform. It's incredible (and frankly scary) to me that some people would vote for Palin to be our president, if she can't even finish her job as a governor.


FrankDC: Trundle off to bed and sleep well. People will not be voting for Sarah Palin because she is not going to run. Rather she will continue to get richer and richer off book sales and public appearances for the benefit of the peanut gallery!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Because of his additional fame, his book sold more copies than it might otherwise have and I'm sure he gets more for speaking appearances than he would have *had he not run for president *(and become even more well-known.)


You mention Gore's run for the Presidency as if it were a resume builder for something greater. Ms Palin ran only as a ticket after-thought and she and Pops got thorougly trounced. Gore, on the other hand, received about 500,000 more votes than the person we were told had won. There is zero comparison. Give it up. (Besides, you've got some sort of mysterious project you're supposed to be finishing, remember?)​


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

i dont believe that is her aim - she is trying to make some money, simple and plain. i dont know if there are any well known republicans that can unite what seems to be two groups of people that are inching further and further away from each other each passing day. 

with that being said, i think democrats would be crazy to think that this automatically ensures electoral victory - this could very easily happen to their party. right now, and i think this health care debate has began to shed light on it, there is a huge intra party food fight going on between the progressive and the more "moderate/DLC" wings of the party. before the house passed the bill w/ a public option there were many progressives, at least on the websites/blogs etc that i read, that were more than willing to scuttle the entire bill and deprive obama and the dems in congress of a legislative victory b/c they felt they were being taken for granted. the abortion amendment is doing the same thing. finally, i think you're going to see this again when it comes to the new financial regulatory structure that is being debated. there are a lot of progressives who think, and they may be right, that obama and the dem's policies are being written by their corporate benefactors. the typical response from within the party has been to ask "so you're going to vote for the republicans?", i dont see that happening but i would not be surprised if a lot of these voters simply stay home if they feel like their party has taken them for granted.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Sounds like a real gem of a book - one that is already selling for $8.99.

_In one hilarious anecdote, in which it's apparent she doesn't understand what she's broadcasting, Palin relates how a senior aide ordered her to knock off the Atkins bars while she was preparing for the debate. _

_He lectures her that beyond protein, carbohydrates are necessary for cognitive connection. Obviously headquarters was so distraught at how badly the prep was going that they were looking for something, anything, to make her brain work._

Read more: 
​


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

*OMG*

PALIN / BECK 2012


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> PALIN / BECK 2012


One of the things I was thinking about was who could run on the bottom of a Palin ticket. I don't see her taking the bottom of a ticket again based on her experience with the HQ campaign staff.

I like Romney, but I don't think he would do Palin-Romney.

Huckabee might do it, but I don't think Palin-Huckabee would win anywhere except Iowa and Arkansas. Would Pawlenty or Jindal? I think that ticket would be too inexperienced. I just don't like a Gov-Gov ticket. I consider Romney an exception because he has so much private sector experience at a very high level and I think he could handle insurance companies and other interests from a reform standpoint. I.E. I think he can go in a room and come out with the better end of a deal. And also I liked his idea of restructuring government itself - from Cabinet on down. After all these Czars that will be needed.

Even though I don't prefer Gov-Gov, I had previously thought Romney-Huckabee should join forces in the primary, but I still think Huckabee is too stupid to make such a reasonable compromise. He cost Romney the primary by losing Iowa early and I think they are pretty much done with each other in any significant way. I really consider Romney more than a Gov or a Senator, but that's my bias for business experience and modern technology experience. I see a huge difference from say Obama using a blackberry to a guy that regular flies internationally to give speeches with powerpoint analysis that people are using for decision-making. Again, just my utility bias. I'm in the 1% - so it's fine.

I considered Palin-Steele which I think might happen, but would lose too.

I'm wondering if something like Palin-Petraeus would work? And I think Not.

So, I've decided on Palin-Gates. I think this is an interesting ticket. And that way the Bushes can keep their hands on the puppet strings.

Just thinking outside the box ... as I am prone to do. So, that's my early call: Palin-Gates 2012 receives 52% of the vote.


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

young guy said:


> PALIN / BECK 2012


Palin/Bachman


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

ksinc said:


> One of the things I was thinking about was who could run on the bottom of a Palin ticket. I don't see her taking the bottom of a ticket again based on her experience with the HQ campaign staff.
> 
> I like Romney, but I don't think he would do Palin-Romney.
> 
> ...


i don't think her heart is in running another national race - especially where if she thought running as VP exposed you and your family to unfair/unprincipled attacks, it would be magnified by 1000 times if you're the candidate. i do think she will play a "kingmaker" type role in the party during the primaries - if you don't get her blessing a huge percentage of GOP primary voters will simply not turn out for you. should be fun to watch either way.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

sowilson said:


> Palin/Bachman


naughty naughty! :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> i don't think her heart is in running another national race - especially where if she thought running as VP exposed you and your family to unfair/unprincipled attacks, it would be magnified by 1000 times if you're the candidate. i do think she will play a "kingmaker" type role in the party during the primaries - if you don't get her blessing a huge percentage of GOP primary voters will simply not turn out for you. should be fun to watch either way.


Would they promise her something; like Secretary of State?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> You mention Gore's run for the Presidency as if it were a resume builder for something greater. Ms Palin ran only as a ticket after-thought and she and Pops got thorougly trounced. Gore, on the other hand, received about 500,000 more votes than the person we were told had won. There is zero comparison. Give it up. (Besides, you've got some sort of mysterious project you're supposed to be finishing, remember?)​


Zero comparison as to magnitude of the person, I suppose. I was just trying to illustrate the process.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Would they promise her something; like Secretary of State?


only if there is a sash for her to wear 'miss understood'


----------



## mbebeau (Feb 6, 2009)

Palin/Clinton 2012!

Co presidents. They basically use the White House like a timeshare.

:devil:


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Earlier in the thread....*

the election in NY-23 is mentioned and there is discussion about who, what, huh. My question, which my not fit with this thread, is when did we as a nation, state, county or city start to make elections final and seat the winner prior to counting ALL of the votes? I don't claim to know the answer, so this is not an attempt to 'start something'.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Would they promise her something; like Secretary of State?


lol...that's a joke right?

chinese ambassador: so madam secretary do you think we can reach an agreement on these currency devaluation issues?

sarah: Youuuu betcha!!


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

PetroLandman said:


> the election in NY-23 is mentioned and there is discussion about who, what, huh. My question, which my not fit with this thread, is when did we as a nation, state, county or city start to make elections final and seat the winner prior to counting ALL of the votes? I don't claim to know the answer, so this is not an attempt to 'start something'.


GOP/conservatives whining about "counting all the votes". Very funny.

Anyway, Hoffman conceded on his own. Blame him. Had he not conceded, Owens would not have been seated.

My guess is that Hoffman thought he was going to win big, and was shocked when exit polls and returns showed a close race with him down. Once he saw that there was a ~5000 vote lead, and ~5500 absentees left to count (10K were sent out, only ~5500 returned), he thought he was done and conceded.

Hoffman is done, but he could have stretched the process out longer. Elections generally have initial returns, and then a series of reviews. For example, initial returns are often reported by telephone, and then the paper could come to the election return HQ later - so there are a number of places for numbers to get messed up - such as reporting the D's votes as the R's votes and vice versa. (FWIW, the poll workers in my area tend to be older and whiter and more conservative than the voters as a whole, and if NY-23 is similar, the likelihood is that these people making the election mistakes are not liberals - I also used to live right next to NY-23 and the poll workers there were also older, whiter and more conservative). Anyway, the numbers are still being checked and rechecked, and in a close election (less than 5%, or less than 10% with less than 10K votes as the gap), I would not concede.

Hoffman, however, probably unconceded and screamed ACORN for a different reason. He knows he's done, but I think Hoffman lended his campaign significant $$$. If he unconcedes and screams ACORN, he improves his ability to continue to fundraise successfully for the election that he lost, and repay himself the loans he made to the campaigns and put money in his pocket.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> People will not be voting for Sarah Palin because she is not going to run.


That seems to be obvious to everyone. Well, almost everyone.

If Republicans continue to be unwilling or unable to wrestle control of their party back from their neocon/fundy fringe, it's almost a certainty that Palin, Huckabee or Romney will wind up on their ticket. Any of these candidates would be great news for the Democrats, it'll be a third consecutive spanking for the Republican Party. You'd think they would have gotten the message by now.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Where do you live, 1954? Two of your heros are dead, the third almost. What about the other Republican hacks between them and now, they get a pass?
> 
> And it's _what's good for GM is good for America,_ and you actually like that quote?​


I may have made a poor mix of Coolidge and Eisenhower's quotes. However, if we were to point at more modern day intellectual "elitist" restrained and powerful Republicans, look no further than Romney, the CEO of Whole Foods, Charlie Crist, McDonnell, Cantor, and, dare I say it, Bloomberg. I assure you the voter base will come and go, but the free market with a hint of social conservatism is there to stay let it be the evangelicals that are doing the voting or the African Americans or the white middle class family


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Just thinking outside the box ... as I am prone to do.


But not so prone to avoiding cliches apparently.​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Henry346 said:


> I may have made a poor mix of Coolidge and Eisenhower's quotes. However, if we were to point at more modern day intellectual "elitist" restrained and powerful Republicans, look no further than Romney, the CEO of Whole Foods, Charlie Crist, McDonnell, Cantor, and, dare I say it, Bloomberg. I assure you the voter base will come and go, but *the free market with a hint of social conservatism is there to stay* let it be the evangelicals that are doing the voting or the African Americans or the white middle class family


I would agree and would want it that way. But am still curious of your dredging up Coolidge and Eisenhower, two of the biggest do-nothing Presidents of the 20th century. As to your citing a handful of Rebublican CEOs, okay; but you leave out Jeffrey Imeld, the Republican CEO of GE, home to left-leaning MSNBC and Universal. It's an odd world, this right-left thing, but I think I like it that way.​


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

PetroLandman said:


> the election in NY-23 is mentioned and there is discussion about who, what, huh. My question, which my not fit with this thread, is when did we as a nation, state, county or city start to make elections final and seat the winner prior to counting ALL of the votes? I don't claim to know the answer, so this is not an attempt to 'start something'.


When did people start to GRASP AT STRAWS instead of accepting outcomes as men instead of sad bastards holding onto a thread.

The Republican and the Conservatives LOST....get over it.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PetroLandman said:


> My question...is *when* did we as a nation, state, county or city start to make elections final and seat the winner prior to counting ALL of the votes?


That would be *December 12, 2000* when the US Supreme Court acted oh-so supreme, stopped the Florida recount and declared the runt of the Bush litter President of the World.
​


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> I would agree and would want it that way. But am still curious of your dredging up Coolidge and Eisenhower, two of the biggest do-nothing Presidents of the 20th century. As to your citing a handful of Rebublican CEOs, okay; but you leave out Jeffrey Imeld, the Republican CEO of GE, home to left-leaning MSNBC and Universal. It's an odd world, this right-left thing, but I think I like it that way.​


I think you mean Jeffrey Immelt. He most certainly is a capitalist but, irrespective of his own declarations, not a Republican.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> That would be *December 12, 2000* when the US Supreme Court acted oh-so supreme, stopped the Florida recount and declared the runt of the Bush litter President of the World.
> ​


Why did the Supreme Court stop the recount?


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

If anyone is interested here is the latest update on the NY-23 vote count:


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

Ultimately though, as a Republican I hate Bush for much of what he has done. Blind Populism, corrupt cronyism, and ideology that I generally support, but he has discredited through terribly thought out plans. However, one thing that he HAS done, that will allow this party to hold sway for at least a few more decades is the masterstroke appointment of Chief Justice Roberts. Cultured, brilliant, and young, he has the charisma and insight to transform the Supreme Court more and more into a bastion of conservatism. Even now, any analysis will say Kennedy and he are on very close terms, and Kennedy generally votes Republican.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Henry346 said:


> Ultimately though, as a Republican I hate Bush for much of what he has done. Blind Populism, corrupt cronyism, and ideology that I generally support, but he has discredited through terribly thought out plans. However, one thing that he HAS done, that will allow this party to hold sway for at least a few more decades is the masterstroke appointment of Chief Justice Roberts. Cultured, brilliant, and young, he has the charisma and insight to transform the Supreme Court more and more into a bastion of conservatism. Even now, any analysis will say Kennedy and he are on very close terms, and Kennedy generally votes *conservative*.


Fixed it for you.

I like Bush personally, but think he was very weak the last few years. That hurt the party the last two elections. But, things have turned around pretty quickly and there will be happy days again the near future.

You are right about Roberts, and I am very happy about Alito too.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

mxgreen said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> I like Bush personally, but think he was very weak the last few years. That hurt the party the last two elections. But, things have turned around pretty quickly and there will be happy days again the near future.
> 
> You are right about Roberts, and I am very happy about Alito too.


I do have that unhealthy habit of mixing conservative and Republican. I would say his main problem are actions such as overpaying pharmaceutical companies for drugs when normally, you have a buyer buying in that sort of bulk, market forces say that you pay less. The performance of Haliburton in Iraq and the contracting of combat forces, I also find very distasteful. While I understand how contractors are necessary on the logistical side, when they use the cost plus method, are chosen through no-bid, and perform terribly, I find it despicable to the men in uniform. And that's not speaking of those goons that serve as mercenaries. The sacrifice of a brilliant mind like Powell bit us back in the 2008 elections as well.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Henry346 said:


> I do have that unhealthy habit of mixing conservative and Republican.


Too funny. Scalia, Thomas and Alito have the same "habit", which is what makes them abominations.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I think her book just creates more tension, drama, and division within the republican party....she blames the Mccain camp for them losing, etc...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Bermuda said:


> I think her book just creates more tension, drama, and division within the republican party....she blames the Mccain camp for them losing, etc...


The McCain camp / campaign strategist / strategy did FAIL.

It does seem like beating-a-dead-horse, but it doesn't seem to be controversial IMHO to "blame the McCain camp for them losing."


----------



## pier0188 (Jun 2, 2009)

Personally I hope this book causes a schism in the Republican party. I would love nothing more than to leave the ultra-right to their own divisive devices while allowing the rest of the party to regain power and set the country on a decent path (you know, fiscal responsibility, limited government intervention in personal lives...like the Republican party was originally).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pier0188 said:


> Personally I hope this book causes a schism in the Republican party. I would love nothing more than to leave the ultra-right to their own divisive devices while allowing the rest of the party to regain power and set the country on a *decent path (you know, fiscal responsibility, limited government intervention in personal lives...like the Republican party was originally)*.


How would those paths cause a schism in the Republican Party? You don't seem to be thinking this through very far.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> will Sarah Palins new book help unite the republican party or will it cause more moderates to leave?


Hopefully people will realize she's not a conservative. The party need to go back to what it used to be, the neo-cons need to break off and make a new party of big government and spending. Once the party gets ride of neo-cons they can go back to supporting small government, less spending and more freedoms.



> How would those paths cause a schism in the Republican Party? You don't seem to be thinking this through very far.


Many "Conservative" Republicans favor massive government, spending and violations of our rights. I've talked to many people who think they're classic Republicans that support the FISA bill, Patriot Act, warrant less wiretapping and all our wars all while claiming to be conservative. How can you support massive government involvement and spending with our intelligence agencies and military and then want small government and more freedom? If you try to pick and choose government here and there you end up with massive government on all fronts like we have now.

If we are to truly bring down government size, spending and interference in our lives we have to do that on all fronts.

In my city we have "Conservative" Republicans who think it's governments job to run the private sector and spend like crazy while charging the highest utility rates in Florida. They don't want healthcare but they sure as hell favor massive government spending and control in areas they want. I've decided both parties are for massive government just in different areas. Democrats more in social areas and Republicans in military and intelligence(FBI, CIA, NSA).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

^^ Excellent post IMO.

Judging from Ron Paul's campaign last year (discredited by his own party's leadership, marginalized by our mass media etc), the chances that Republicans will be able to reclaim their "less government" party are close to nil.

In fact we have to go back nearly 80 years to find significant representation of fiscal conservatism -- in either party. Reagan talked a lot about it, but he never submitted a single balanced budget to Congress, and our national debt tripled during his administration. It had taken the U.S. 180 years for our debt to reach $1 trillion (in 1980), but just eight years later it was over $3 trillion. By the end of GHWB's term our debt had nearly quadrupled.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> Hopefully people will realize she's not a conservative. The party need to go back to what it used to be, the neo-cons need to break off and make a new party of big government and spending. Once the party gets ride of neo-cons they can go back to supporting small government, less spending and more freedoms.
> 
> Many "Conservative" Republicans favor massive government, spending and violations of our rights. I've talked to many people who think they're classic Republicans that support the FISA bill, Patriot Act, warrant less wiretapping and all our wars all while claiming to be conservative. How can you support massive government involvement and spending with our intelligence agencies and military and then want small government and more freedom? If you try to pick and choose government here and there you end up with massive government on all fronts like we have now.
> 
> ...


Since I live down the road from you, let's assume I agree with all that. My Progress Energy bill was $380 last month ...

But, my point is in the GOP how would that cause a schism in the party? They call themselves "Conservatives" and if a real conservative wins a nomination they will vote for the rhetoric even if they can't really communicate conservative principles. A lot of hyphenated-conservatives voted for Reagan and W.

Specifically, say if Rubio beats Crist in the primary. These "Conservative" Republicans are going to do what exactly? I hate Crist, but if Rubio doesn't beat him I'll have to vote for him just as I did McCain. And those RINOs will fall in line for Rubio or Crist too. See my point? The schism doesn't go very far in real action. Someone in Politico or Salon will write about the schism, but they will all vote for the Pig ... errr Elephant.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> ^^ Excellent post IMO.
> 
> Judging from Ron Paul's campaign last year (discredited by his own party's leadership, marginalized by our mass media etc), the chances that Republicans will be able to reclaim their "less government" party are close to nil.
> 
> In fact we have to go back nearly 80 years to find significant representation of fiscal conservatism -- in either party. Reagan talked a lot about it, but he never submitted a single balanced budget to Congress, and our national debt tripled during his administration. It had taken the U.S. 180 years for our debt to reach $1 trillion (in 1980), but just eight years later it was over $3 trillion. By the end of GHWB's term our debt had nearly quadrupled.


One of the things I disliked about the 'Ron Paul Experience' was that it showed us that GOPers couldn't hear what he was saying about economics because they disagreed with him on Iraq. I also disagreed with him on Iraq, but I liked 99% of what he was saying and I understood and respected his view on Iraq as consistent and principled. I would have at least liked it if 30% of the electorate had come away with a better handle on looking at things economically. I remember I watched a great little townhall type thing he did in Vermont or NH on healthcare on YouTube. It was as good or better than Romney's analysis. I wish even if these guys hadn't won; people had seen the half-hour or so each did on healthcare costs and root causes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

mxgreen said:


> I think you mean Jeffrey Immelt. He most certainly is a capitalist but, irrespective of his own declarations, not a Republican.


Yes, that is who I meant. And I may have assumed too much when he said on the Charlie Rose show that either he voted for McCain, or did not vote for Obama. He said one or the other.​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

mxgreen said:


> Why did the Supreme Court stop the recount?


Because five is greater than four. And of those four, Justice Stevens probably said it best in his dissent:

"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

But Stevens is trash to me: he should have resigned after saying that.​


----------

