Re: Elites Way Off on Palin Electability

by Aaron Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:07 pm

Stephanie wrote:
That very well could be Rand Paul as his speech at Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference shows. Despite what Stephanie thinks, I doubt he'll go there and say anything that will offend Reed or Robertson as he won't get their support if he does.

I never said I thought Rand Paul would say things to offend or antagonize Reed or Robertson. What I said was, and what I continue to say is, don't expect Rand Paul to change his views or positions for their support. He can certainly tailor a speech for that appearance that will please them without discussing the issues where they differ. There is a lot of common ground there, why would he bring up issues they don't agree upon?

He won't have to but you can better bet the media will bring up every issue they disagree on so either way, it's going to come back on him.

Whether he brings up gay marriage or not, at some piont he's going to be forced to answer the question and when he does, he either pleases both then or he loses the support of the religious right.

He might as well McCain it up and kiss hiney if he wants the nomination. That's his best chance of winning the Presidency.

Of course this could all be groundwork for a 2016 run as his daddy is running all over Iowa.

by **SheikBen** Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:05 pm

Aaron,

You have an excellent point that the "two sides" of the right will have to get along, and my point is that they will. I suppose you want a "culture warrior" who comes across as administratively advanced who is also a deficit hawk that can speak in plain English.

I wanted Paul in the primaries, and voted that way. Had the candidate been Huckabee or Romney, I would have voted for him (holding my nose but finding them acceptable). Giuliani and McCain were both outside of my proviso of acceptability, so I voted third party.

My point is that there are certain candidates whose followers are willing to hold their noses for certain other candidates but not for everyone. The trick is to find the one person everyone can "rally around with their noses held" if we can't get a Paul or a Bachman, which truth be told, we probably can't.

by **SheikBen** Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:07 pm

And if we seek the perfect person to be our candidate, we need to stop actin like Democrats in 2008.

by Aaron Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:04 pm

SheikBen wrote:Aaron,

You have an excellent point that the "two sides" of the right will have to get along, and my point is that they will. I suppose you want a "culture warrior" who comes across as administratively advanced who is also a deficit hawk that can speak in plain English.

I wanted Paul in the primaries, and voted that way. Had the candidate been Huckabee or Romney, I would have voted for him (holding my nose but finding them acceptable). Giuliani and McCain were both outside of my proviso of acceptability, so I voted third party.

My point is that there are certain candidates whose followers are willing to hold their noses for certain other candidates but not for everyone. The trick is to find the one person everyone can "rally around with their noses held" if we can't get a Paul or a Bachman, which truth be told, we probably can't.

I don't believe they will. I believe their will be in-fighting that will force the eventual candidate to appease the religious right in the primary then we'll either have a 2nd Obama Presidency or 2000 again.

And my point is that I would prefer an Obama Presidency with a conservative House and Senate to a Republican candidate who won't cut spending.

Now you can say a Republican such as Palin, Bachman, or Huckabee will, but the truth is, you have nothing to back that up on as the last 3 Republican Presidents have increased the national debt to the tune of about $8,000,000,000,000.00. The only difference between then and Obama is where the money went so I'd just as soon have an partisan government that accomplishes nothing then either party with complete control.

by SamCogar Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:07 am

The way I see it, Election 2012 is going to be a replay of Election 1992.

Several people will file as POTUS Candidates for the Primaries ...... just to keep their names in the "spotlight" but none of the big names will really want to win, but just make a good "showing".

The Democrats will fight hard to regain control of the House, to keep control of the Senate and to replace Obama with a Republican as POTUS.

Republicans will fight hard to keep control of the House, to win the Senate and to keep Obama as POTUS.

If the Democrats make sure Obama loses in 2012 ..... then Obama and the Democrats can claim that the past 4 years of FAILURES were a direct result of Bush's legacy and the Republican controlled House, ....... a "WIN-WIN" for both.

To insure the above, the Democrats will try to nominate a "no-body" as their POTUS Candidate, figuring there is no way he/she can win.

If the Republicans make sure Obama wins in 2012 ..... then the Republicans can claim that the past 4 years of FAILURES, and everything bad that happens in the next 4 years, were/will be a direct result of Obama's lack of leadership and the Democrat's wasteful, spend-crazy practices, ....... a "WIN-WIN" for the Republicans.

To insure the above, the Republicans will try to nominate a "no-body" as their POTUS Candidate, figuring there is no way he/she can win.

Thus, there is a good possibility there will be another "dark horse", like Bill Clinton, that will emerge from the "pack" and be elected as POTUS in the 2012 General Election.

Ya gotta figure ......

"there are BIG troubles in River City"

....... when no one is really "chomping at the bit" ...... to File as a POTUS Primary Candidate. Twisted Evil

Elites Way Off on Palin Electability - Page 4 197570

Elites Way Off on Palin Electability - Page 4 49761

by Cato Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:26 pm

Aaron wrote: ... The only difference between then and Obama is where the money went so I'd just as soon have an partisan government that accomplishes nothing then either party with complete control.

I really agree that gridlock is the best policy and what the founders may have had in mind when they established the republic.

by Aaron Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:28 pm

Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote: ... The only difference between then and Obama is where the money went so I'd just as soon have an partisan government that accomplishes nothing then either party with complete control.

I really agree that gridlock is the best policy and what the founders may have had in mind when they established the republic.

It is the only thing that's actually worked in the past 40 years.

by Aaron Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:35 am

When your own don't like you, something's wrong, especially considering Alaska IS NOT a Democratic hotbed.

Alaskans not wild about Sarah Palin

SUMMERS | 4/20/11 6:47 AM EDT Updated: 4/20/11 6:52 AM EDT

Sarah Palin’s got some trouble on the home front.

Continue Reading

Sixty-one percent of Alaskans have an unfavorable opinion of the former governor, including 39 percent who put themselves in the "very unfavorable” category, according to a new poll by Dave Dittman.

That leaves only 36 percent who view Palin favorably. Three percent of survey respondents are undecided.

The AlaskaPoll of 400 residents was taken between March 3-17.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53459.html#ixzz1K4AFW7do

by Aaron Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:25 am

Yeah, she's electable.

A Plea to Fellow Republicans -- Stop Defending Sarah Palin

COMMENTARY | As a Republican, it pains my heart to watch the response to Sarah Palin's latest gaffe. Like so many times before, Palin has put herself on the hot plate and shown that she does not know when to be quiet.

From the beginning, Republicans have squirmed through every public appearance she makes. From the 2008 debates to this current joke of a bus tour, Palin has shown she lacks the basic skills to handle pressure.

This is not a good sign in a potential candidate for the Republican nomination for president.

Why then, does Palin continue to get support from Republicans?

The latest situation with Palin messing up the history of Paul Revere is a perfect example. It is clear to anyone that saw the video that Palin had no clue what she was talking about.

It was a moment of verbal vomit that made her seem like she had never attended grade school. The entire episode could have been prevented any number of ways. Palin could have simply ignored the question and kept walking. Palin could have changed the subject.

More importantly, Palin could have actually took a moment to read about Revere before visiting so that she would be prepared for the gaggle of reporters that were sure to follow her. That would have been novel for her.

What makes the entire situation so bad, however, is the aftermath. Like so many Palin "situations" in the past, Palin is now coming out and saying she was right. She is trying to use semantics to say that the British were warned because Revere confessed to them.

Republicans are actually following suit and trying to latch onto that argument for her. That makes the party look completely ignorant right beside her.

Revere did not warn the British. Revere warned the colonists and confessed to the British. Revere did not ring bells or shoot warning shots, as this would have drawn attention and squashed the revolt before it even began.

It is clear that Palin simply tried to fake her way through this and messed up like she always does when she attempts such folly.

After a couple of years of defending and trying to make sense of Sarah Palin, it is time for Republicans to say enough. Sarah Palin had a chance to come out and say she messed up. Sarah was too arrogant to do so.

Perhaps it is time that we Republicans simply admit we messed up in backing Palin and move forward. Liberals are not afraid of Sarah Palin. That is wishful thinking to say the least.

They pray for her nomination.

by Sponsored content