October 1, 2009

"The emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney..."

Disrespecting Sarah.

186 comments:

Andrew D. said...

Oh, please please respect Sarah!!

The republicans need their own Eugene McCarthy experience. And Obama needs an opponent whose base would assure her of, oh, five or six states!

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm missing the disprespect thing.

I still find it amazing that so many lefties hate her so much. I never thought there were so many sexists on that side of the aisle.

al said...

Establishment Republicans gave us John McCain. Not anyone I'd listen to.

As for Sarah - I think she'll be content to electing someone (this time around) and not necessarily putting herself and her family through the experience again.

SteveR said...

Regardless of Palin, "establishement Republicans" doesn't conjure up an image of success.

MadisonMan said...

As others have noted, Establishment Republicans. They are as worthy of disdain as any Establishment Democrat.

Professional Politicians should not be employed.

miller said...

I have lots of respect for Pawlenty, and would vote for him.

I have lots of respect for Palin and would vote for her, if only to watch liberals' heads explode in rage.

Paddy O. said...

Sarah Palin uses Facebook to communicate messages that resonate to thousands and impacts the current political debate.

Pawlenty's team "serve notice to the small community of political insiders that the governor is serious about a White House run".

Living in California has opened my eyes to the dark side of these establishment Republicans. They don't really care about winning or having control. They want their little piece of power.

And it's these establishment Republicans who make a little fuss in small audience places so they can get more money and more applause from approved sources.

Pawlenty has "no signature issues to run on" and is clearly in this just because he wants a bit more lecture circuit money.

The Republican establishment are losers. Even when they were in control of Congress and the Presidency they showed they were just in it for the money. They allowed corruption, and betrayed the reasons for election.

Pawlenty represents the desire of establishment Republicans to help make the whole country reflect California politics, and it should be utterly and totally ignored. Pawlenty couldn't even help get a Republican senator elected in his own state, and he certainly can't get anyone outside those small circles of insiders to care.

traditionalguy said...

It is a serious error to underestimate Sarah Palin's skills. The money men who want to be the kingmakers of the GOP are not interested in the Country any more than the Sorosocrats are. The Country they pledge their allegiance to is The Balanced Monetary Flows Around the Globe, and it has no distinct National Boundaries to their minds. They want a tool for their use. So Sarah's Rogue populism will be as great a fright to them as she is a fright to the Sorosocrats who are using their tool to regulate us, the smiling Obama.

Balfegor said...

I think the problem with Palin is more or less the same as the problem with Obama. After four years of cack-handed incompetence, due to our foolishness in electing a President with no experience in executive office, would we really want to elect someone who cut out after what, 2.5 years? Even if four years of Obama leave us yearning for a somewhat more experienced hand to guide the ship of state, 4 years as president >>>> 2.5 years as governor.

L. E. Lee said...

We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah! We want Sarah!

(Speaking above for liberals.)

Eric said...

The best thing the Republican party could do is jettison these "establishment Republicans". As al said, they gave us John McCain.

TRO said...

I like Pawlenty, but I really don't think one should disrespect a woman whose book is Number 1 before it's even been released. She may not be the candidate (I hope she is because someone who can generate so much fear and loathing from the left has got to be good), but she damn sure can bring a lot of votes to one by an endorsement.

Richard Dolan said...

Funny. I thought it was mostly Pawlenty who was giving us Pawlenty as the sole viable alternative, and (for obvious reasons) he wants to define the choice as a binary exercise pitting him against someone he thinks he can beat.

It would be interesting to see if Romney tries to frame the choice in the same way.

So it's not necessarily an exercise in 'disrespecting Sarah' -- one could just as easily look at it as the opposite, in that Pawlenty's desire to frame the choice in this way is a tacit admission of her formidable political appeal.

MadisonMan said...

Palin's problem is that people like me are unlikely to vote for her. Hard-core Republicans will, I suppose, as they vote for any non-dead Republican on the ballot. But hard-core Republicans will not elect the President.

Pawlenty's problem is that the screaming far right wing of the Republican Party will call him a RINO and make it difficult for him to win the nomination. Appeasing the screaming right wing of the Republican Party got McCain to lasso in Palin, to predictable results.

But what do I know? I wanted Vilsack to stay in the run last time around.

As for Pawlenty not being able to get Coleman elected, what do you want? 58% of the electorate voted against the winner. It's somehow Pawlenty's fault that Coleman can't even get 43% of the vote?

Big Mike said...

As I said yesterday (or was it the day before?), neither Romney nor Pawlenty nor Sarah Palin will be the candidate. The candidate is out there right now, but keeping a low profile and letting the liberal establishment (including the old media) wear themselves out flinging feces at those three (but especially Sarah). Sort of like rope-a-dope.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm pretty confident that after 4 years of President Shortpants, the bar will be sufficiently low enough that being able to tie your shoes will be sufficient qualifications to be President.

Pawlenty will be a shoe in at that point.

jeff said...

"Establishment Republicans" are the ones that got us into this mess. It is the backlash to Establishment Republicans that drives people to Sarah Palin. The people who can vote for Obama on one hand and mock Palin on the other have an amazing disconnect.

TRO said...

"Hard-core Republicans will, I suppose, as they vote for any non-dead Republican on the ballot. But hard-core Republicans will not elect the President."

I'm not a hard-core Republican. In fact,I'm not a Republican at all. I'm a right-leaning Independent with a distaste for anything that leads us down the road to socialism.

And I like Palin . . . a lot . . . because she's an outsider and the anti-Obama in terms of, well, just about everything.

2012 may be the time for that.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Big Mike has a good point. I don't think Palin really has any aspirations to be President at this point. Shes a lighting rod to be sure and I think she's pretty content with keeping the base energized while making lefties like Lee and company piss their diapers in rage every time she winks.

Its quite possible the GOP have her doing Patton's job during the D Day buildup. Make a lot of noise over there while we quietly get ready over here. So Queen Andy and the rest can keep obsessing over her vagina because it makes you guys look oh so mature.

edutcher said...

Miss Sarah, I believe, understands the issue of her resignation. I also think she realizes that '12 would not have been her year in any case and that she's young enough that '16 or '20 gives her plenty of time to build her resume.

As for Romney, I think Mass Health dooms him. In any case, with 40 years or so of observation, I have yet to see the front-runner this far out get the nod, R or D.

Oh, and L. E., Andrew, you really are a couple of morons.

Paul said...

"I still find it amazing that so many lefties hate her so much. I never thought there were so many sexists on that side of the aisle."

Lefties are the biggest bigots around. Just observe the comments of the various trolls on this blog for a taste.

They spew their venom toward politically incorrect groups so they rationalize it away, but it is bigotry plain and simple.

A classic example was the idiot garage mahal being incredulous that a politically conservative person could be a soulful musician. WTF? That's probably the basest form of bigotry when you demonize a group as being soulless and thus subhuman.

I am surrounded with these folks and the Nazis hatred for the Jews was no more intense. They simply had the power to express their hatred with no restraint.

Their demonic hatred of Sarah Palin is the perfect window into their rage poisoned minds.

Invisible Man said...

Hoosier Daddy,

I still find it amazing that so many righties hate him so much. I never thought there were so many racists on that side of the aisle.

Not so fair now. It's funny that you could make such a statement about Sarah with no irony to your bashing of liberals who have done similarily. Intellectual honesty obviously doesn't suit you.

TRO said...

"I still find it amazing that so many righties hate him so much. I never thought there were so many racists on that side of the aisle."

Few on the right actually hate Obama. They hate his policies and the road he is taking us on. You can keep pulling out that racism card all you want but it doesn't win any pots any longer.

We're officially post-racial now. Ain't it a bitch - for liberals that is.

AJ Lynch said...

It's too early to tell what message the voters will want the most. If the economy continues to crater [jobless recovery and all that], Romney's message will be #1.

If things go really bad, Palin's get back to basics and small govt will be #1.

If things just go sideways, Pawlenty may be #1.

wv= serbia

MadisonMan said...

And I like Palin . . . a lot . . . because she's an outsider

Well, her outsiderness is helpful only if the people she's running against aren't DC insiders. (I'm thinking Republican Primary here, if she actually does run).

I think in the '06-'08 timeframe, people were pretty disgusted with DC in general. Obama was able to tap into that by running against the consummate insider, Hillary!, and I think it carried over into the General Election, even though Obama himself was an insider.

The question -- unanswerable right now -- is how high will the DC disgust be in 2012?

garage mahal said...

A classic example was the idiot garage mahal being incredulous that a politically conservative person could be a soulful musician. WTF? That's probably the basest form of bigotry when you demonize a group as being soulless and thus subhuman..

Whaaaa! That's all you do here is demonize groups of people, liberals.

And what's with Althouse turning into a Palin Fangirl? Just mentioning a Repub candidate other than Palin is disrespect? Jeebus

former law student said...

I agree with MadisonMan's argument, as I understand it: McCain picked Sarah Palin to rally the conservative base; unfortunately her dark horse stature cost him the moderate vote. The move was particularly stupid because Republicans have a deep bench of serious, qualified, female VP candidates -- Kay Bailey Hutchison and Liddy Dole being the two that spring immediately to mind.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I really see Palin as more of a "rainmaker" this time around rather than an actual candidate herself. Her official endorsement of a candidate would go a long long way in getting him votes.

She is in the cat bird seat right now. Rolling in the dough and able to make Obama look like a retard just by using her Facebook page. Why would she want to run for President when she can be the King Maker.

I don't have a problem with Pawlenty as a moderate conservative. Romney, would make an awesome and capable President, but I feel he is not electable because of the baggage he has and the prejudice against his religion. Huckabee is too religious right for the middle ground to vote for him.

Pawlenty would be smart to adopt Sarah Palin's populist message and NOT candy coat it with 'establishment' Republican speak. The appeal that Sarah has to her base is the plain speaking of her ideals and cutting to the chase.

If Pawlenty comes out as just a slightly better version of McCain or Romney they will lose big time.

vw: voetsmsm

How the last President got elected by MSM bias and trickery.

word verification is psychic

Scott M said...

He's not a got a snowball's chance in Titan's underwear.

I say Romney's still the best choice, but unfortunately we seem to have a dearth of winnable truly conservative candidates right now.

What will be interesting is to see if anyone from the Democrats ranks decides they've had enough or don't want to see a second (and likely MORE radical) Obama second term hand power to the right for 20 years.

A lot hinges on the upcoming mid-terms as well. If someone on the conservative side wins, or closely looses, with a big media hit or two, they could be viable.

Jon said...

I can't support Pawlenty in the primaries because he was a very early endorser of John McCain, which proves he is either a RINO himself, or has has appallingly bad judgement.

TRO said...

"I think in the '06-'08 timeframe, people were pretty disgusted with DC in general. Obama was able to tap into that by running against the consummate insider, Hillary!, and I think it carried over into the General Election, even though Obama himself was an insider.

The question -- unanswerable right now -- is how high will the DC disgust be in 2012?"

Obama got elected in the perfect storm of Hillary, the need to try to make-up for the sins of racism, a weak McCain, and intense Bush hatred. None of which is going to be the case in 2012 (unless Hillary decides to run). It's going to boil down to the economy mostly but also I think that whole outsider mentality again.

But you're right that there is no way to tell this far out. And even if she doesn't run she is going to help a lot of other candidates I think with endorsements.

TRO said...

"I agree with MadisonMan's argument, as I understand it: McCain picked Sarah Palin to rally the conservative base; unfortunately her dark horse stature cost him the moderate vote. The move was particularly stupid because Republicans have a deep bench of serious, qualified, female VP candidates -- Kay Bailey Hutchison and Liddy Dole being the two that spring immediately to mind."

I don't think there was anyone McCain could have picked and won that election. It was Obama's time. Unfortunately, for him and the far left that is, he is blowing it big time.

Oxbay said...

I first saw Palin as she spoke when McCain introduced her as his running mate. I thought her speech was very good. I was predisposed to like her. I had heard of her as Governor of Alaska and of her son joining the Army.

I heard her speech at the convention. It was a great speech.

I'm predisposed to like her. At the same time I don't want to hear whining about the incompetent McCain aides who mishandled her in any number of ways and who came to dislike her.

I didn't see the Gibson or Couric interviews. By most accounts she gave a dismal performance. Whether or not Gibson and/or Couric were out to get her as a candidate for high office you have to cover all the bases. If you don't think your aides are properly preparing you get prepared yourself. It's on you no on them when you're the one at bat. You're up there swinging you have to hit it, no one else.

If she's the nominee next time I will support her. Heck I supported McCain. If I can support a RINO like him I can support her.

Do I automatically want her to be the nominee? I do not. She's got to compete. Part of that is dealing with self serving state run media types who hate her and dealing with them effectively. No matter what the question her answer should be delivered in such a way that it will get her votes.

At the same time I don't know how it happened but many people hate her. My wife, who is educated (PhD), smart, and an extreme left winger like most elected Democrats in D.C., is one of them. She learned all she needed to learn about Palin from NPR. Within a week after her introduction to the country my wife hated her and didn't deny it. That is some weird stuff.

Does Palin have to change some hearts and minds of people like my wife to be successful? I don't know.

Good luck to Sarah Palin and all the other contestants for the Republican nomination. Whoever it is I hope he/she does a great job campaigning and wins by a significant margin.

Oxbay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason (the commenter) said...

He's for balanced budgets. I don't care if he gets along with Palin(love her), if he gets along with the party establishment(hate them). He's for balanced budgets.

Paul said...

"Whaaaa! That's all you do here is demonize groups of people, liberals."

Just reacting to their bigotry garage. It's like being a closeted gay mingling with homophobes...you can't let them know what you are but you can't pretend they're not hateful bigots either.

You'll never understand the live and let live libertarian mindset that just wants to be left alone and doesn't want any part of your damned social engineering and financial confiscatory shenanigans.

I'll fight you bastards unitl my last dying breath.

Oxbay said...

I first saw Palin as she spoke when McCain introduced her as his running mate. I thought her speech was very good. I was predisposed to like her. I had heard of her as Governor of Alaska and of her son joining the Army.

I heard her speech at the convention. It was a great speech.
I like her.

At the same time I don't want to hear whining about the incompetent McCain aides who mishandled her in any number of ways and who came to dislike her.

I didn't see the Gibson or Couric interviews. By most accounts she gave a dismal performance. Whether or not Gibson and/or Couric were out to get her as a candidate for high office you have to cover all the bases. If you don't think your aides are properly preparing you get prepared yourself. It's on you not on them when you're the one at bat. You're up there swinging; you have to hit it, no one else.

If she's the nominee next time I will support her. Heck I supported McCain. If I can support a RINO like him I can support her.

Do I automatically want her to be the nominee? I do not. She's got to compete. Part of that is dealing with self serving state run media types who hate her and dealing with them effectively. No matter what the question her answer should be delivered in such a way that it will get her votes.

At the same time I don't know how it happened but many people hate her. My wife, who is educated (PhD), smart, and an extreme left winger like most elected Democrats in D.C., is one of them. She learned all she needed to learn about Palin from NPR. Within a week after her introduction to the country my wife hated her and didn't deny it. That is some weird stuff. It's also a powerful impediment to Palin's future success in politics.

Does Palin have to change some hearts and minds of people like my wife to be successful? I don't know.

Good luck to Sarah Palin and all the other contestants for the Republican nomination. Whoever it is I hope he/she does a great job campaigning and wins the general election by a significant margin.

traditionalguy said...

There is some amazing analysis in this thread, all about politics as we used to know it, but our leadership deficit is not going to be solved by a numbers game of smart moves in perfectly timed scenarios. The simply fact is that Sarah Palin is the only one with the Intestional Fortitude needed to take the winning shots with the game on the line. Get the ball into her hands. McCain lost his election the day he "Suspended his campaign" and ran back to DC to play Minority Senator Games when we were looking for a President. until that moment Palin had pushed him into a lead that he threw away trying to pretend he was wiser about ecomomics than the Solemn and patient Obama.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Not so fair now. It's funny that you could make such a statement about Sarah with no irony to your bashing of liberals who have done similarily.

You obviously missed the irony in my comment. Not a big surprise.

former law student said...

You'll never understand the live and let live libertarian mindset that just wants to be left alone and doesn't want any part of your damned social engineering and financial confiscatory shenanigans.

I thought I did, until seven machos revealed he qualified for reduced-price school lunch as a kid.

Maybe we damned social engineers and wealth-confiscators should have let the little bastard go hungry.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You'll never understand the live and let live libertarian mindset that just wants to be left alone and doesn't want any part of your damned social engineering and financial confiscatory shenanigans.


Well that's because garage is your classic liberal realizes that you're too stupid to make those kind of individual decisions to be left alone. That's what the government is for. It takes a village; didn't you know that?

Jason (the commenter) said...

traditionalguy: The simply fact is that Sarah Palin is the only one with the Intestional Fortitude needed to take the winning shots with the game on the line. Get the ball into her hands.

She dropped it almost every time she gave an interview during the campaign. She also didn't disclose her daughter's pregnancy up front which caused all sorts of problems.

McCain lost his election the day he "Suspended his campaign" and ran back to DC to play Minority Senator Games when we were looking for a President.

Being better than McCain isn't much of an accomplishment. He let a lot of people down.

We will see how Pawlenty and Palin do soon enough, if Palin even decides to run. I see Pawlenty being very cautious and deliberate. Personally, I am sick of candidates with personality or charisma. Give me someone with a cool head.

Oh, and someone who is for balanced budgets (did I mention Pawlenty is for balanced budgets?)

MadisonMan said...

The simply fact is that Sarah Palin is the only one with the Intestional Fortitude needed to take the winning shots with the game on the line.

Her resignation as Governor calls this analysis into question.

A week or more ago, someone (I think it was Peter) posted a link that showed McCain's numbers vs. Palin's approval numbers during 2008. The two lines had remarkably similar shapes. McCain's ill-advised campaign suspension certainly cost him a lot; it made people question his judgement. If you're being a bad judge about suspending, what else have you been a bad judge about? (Looks at Sarah Palin).

Hoosier Daddy said...

Maybe we damned social engineers and wealth-confiscators should have let the little bastard go hungry.

Well with respect to Machos, it really isn't my responsiblity to feed someone else's kids.

That being said, the beef I always have is that I don't have any objections to helping the poor, I have objections with making them permanent wards of the state. A conservative's idea of welfare is helping people become independent rather than dependent.

You know when I got married at 24, Mrs. Hoosier and I made the conscious choice to hold off on kids until we were in a bit better financial situation, you know, getting school loans paid off and having a few bucks put away. Thus we waited rather than cranking out a small civilization and then wondering why I don't have two nickles to rub together.

Is some basic sense life planning really that difficult for some people? If so why does it then become my financial responsibility?

Methadras said...

Watch the leftist meme against his name. Pawlenty. It's so rubish they can't wait to start throwing the moniker of hick, hillbilly, and goober at him. I can see Chris Mathews uttering, "What kind of name is Pawlenty? I'm not feeling the thrill up my leg on that one."

knox said...

I love the Sarah Palin on the sidelines, who quit politics and gives speeches and commentary as an independent. I love her traveling the circuit, making big bucks and spreading the Libertarian Word.

With that said, she forfeited her ability to be taken seriously as a candidate when she abandoned the governorship. You don't walk out of elected office--for any reason--then ask for people to vote for you again. Maybe if she had had a more coherent exit speech or justification for her resignation. But she didn't. The "lame duck" thing made no sense.

As long as Palin stays out of politics, and occupies the "King Maker" role that DBQ described, I support her. But I'd never vote for her, unless the other options were just revolting.

I don't find Pawlenty, what little I know of him, revolting. At least not yet. We'll see.

Darcy said...

"Establishment Republicans" dismiss Sarah at their peril. That is, they dismiss what voters like about her. She isn't going to run. She'd be out of her mind! She has it all right now. DBQ has it exactly right. She is going to have a lot of sway with a hell of a lot of voters come next election.

I'm so sick of the establishment Repubs. I tell them so every time they ask for money now. It ain't happenin'. I'll give money to candidates I support. Period. And this kind of pushing of Pawlenty is going to make that trend continue.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Get the ball into her hands.

She dropped it almost every time she gave an interview during the campaign.


Well you know MadisonMan, this line of argument falls flat on its face when you look at the complete dumbfuckery that Biden displayed pretty much anytime he opened his mouth.

I mean Invisible Man accuses me of lacking intellectual honesty but how about a little from the left ok? Palin is dumb and unqualified but Biden isn't and is? I mean Biden doesn't just drop the ball, he fumbles it, recovers and runs to the wrong fucking endzone yet the MSM and company completely ignore what a complete idiot he is.

I mean complaing about Palin is like someone with a kid in the special olympics criticizing me cause my kid didn't make varsity.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And I concur with what Knox said.

Dave said...

Always a victim, that Sarah Palin...

c3 said...

I don't understand why we so quickly react to the unspoken in a reporter's or pundit's comments. Haven't we learned that it matters little what candidates are "viable" from the "establishment" perspective. Wasn't it supposed to be Romney v. Clinton in '08. I'll let the voters decide who's viable.

PS I supported McCain in '08. Still like him. I honestly don't get the RINO tag (unless one has a far-right perspective on Republican Orthodoxy.) But hey, your own mileage may vary.

Balfegor said...

As for Romney, I think Mass Health dooms him.

Yes, despite his feeble efforts to distinguish Romneycare from the knock-offs circulating in Congress, having him at the top of the ticket would effectively destroy the ability of the Republican party to make the case against the Democrats' health care proposals.

Perhaps the issue will recede in importance over the next three years -- hard to say -- but even if not, it puts him at odds with most, if not all, of his party.

knox said...

honestly don't get the RINO tag

RINO, whatever. He was for Cap & Trade. He says he's against Obama's version, but he's a Global Warming Believer. That's the last thing conservatives are interested in.

Fred4Pres said...

This is Tim thinking he can fill a gap for Republicans who think Romney, Palin and Huckabee do not have the horsepower to win. Good luck to Tim, I would much rather have him as president than Barack Obama, backed by the Democratic Party junta in Congress. I would much rather have Romney, Palin, or (dare I say) Huckabee than Barack Obama.

I love Sarah Palin, I think she has been completely and unfairly vilified by the left, but she definitely has some baggage for a general election. Sorry. But she does. That is not disrepect, that is just the way it is. If she got the nomination and won, the histrionics of the left would be so delicious and rich, every conservative would look like Michael Moore.

Fred4Pres said...

I am not counting Sarah Palin out. I am not counting any conservative or Republican out. It is way too early for that. The shakeups will happen in the primaries.

Joe said...

I reluctantly support Romney in the primaries last year. I still get mail from him. Problem is that I'm finding it very hard to get past his very hypocritical flip flopping and his RINO manner of governance of Massachusetts. In short, I just don't believe him.

Not a big Palin fan either. I'm especially annoyed by the Obamaesque support she's getting from the right.

I've yet to see ANY Republican for 2012 that I'd support. Despite that he's really a blue dog democrat, I'd support Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah. Yes, he's a bit too much of a politician for my taste (I suppose his ability to speak a lot without saying anything makes for being a good ambassador, but it sure is annoying.) On the other hand, he is a solid fiscal conservative and that's what we need. Pawlenty strikes me as being similar.

AJ Lynch said...

Jason said:
"Personally, I am sick of candidates with personality or charisma. Give me someone with a cool head. "

That is what I was trying to say. The voters will embrace the candidate whose message they like best. That is highly dependent on what happens in the next 3 years. I'd lean toward the way your are feeling .. in 2012 substance will beat personality IMO.

wv= knongs

Paul said...

"That being said, the beef I always have is that I don't have any objections to helping the poor, I have objections with making them permanent wards of the state. A conservative's idea of welfare is helping people become independent rather than dependent."

Well the dirty little secret is the rampant greed that infects the hearts of all leftist ideologues. Not greed for money, but for POWER. Almost always rationalized as compassion for the poor benighted masses unable to figure out what's good for them, but it is a real pathological craving to control other people. And it is the single most destructive agent responsible for the vast majority of human suffering throughout history.

MadisonMan said...

Hooiser, Jason made the ball-dropping claim, not me.

LonewackoDotCom said...

"Mainstream GOP leader" rhymes with "grossly incompetent". On a very minor note, I used to contribute to a site run by one of TPaw's technology "experts". I warned them a couple times about a massive security hole in their site and never heard back. I offered to solve the problem for a small fee and never heard back. Then, I was banned from that site (over the issue at the link), they refused to contact me for a month, and they thought they had some right to keep my (c) content on their site.

So, good luck with all that.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): She dropped it almost every time she gave an interview during the campaign.

Hoosier Daddy: Well you know MadisonMan, this line of argument falls flat on its face when you look at the complete dumbfuckery that Biden displayed pretty much anytime he opened his mouth.

Calm down for a minute Hoosier Daddy, you're getting our identities mixed up and reason too. Everybody sucked during the campaign in their own individual way. Biden's faults do not excuse Palin's. Besides, we should be able to understand and recognize a politician's faults. Every politician has them, but once you are capable of seeing them you are also capable of picking the politician with the faults you can live with.

Look at all the Obama supporters who are just now seeing his faults. I can understand the disillusionment in the the 20-somethings, but it's just pathetic among all the older ones.

Pelalusa said...

Who knows if Sarah Palin is the ultimate Presidential candidate but one thing I'm quickly learning is that there is a huge difference between true conservative GOP candidates and establishment GOP candidates. In too many cases, the latter appear to be RINOs.

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darcy said...

Hoosier Daddy: Do you really think Palin is dumb? I thought she was ill-prepared for the national spotlight, but I've never had the impression that she is dumb. I think her political savvy is going to grow, and I agree with her on most every policy position that she offers her opinion on.

I would vastly prefer her to what we have in office now. I would prefer her over McCain right now too, actually. Why? Because I think she has good, solid core beliefs and instincts. Resigning is going to be a net plus for her, and fade from being a negative, I think, in hindsight.

I'm not anywhere near saying she is the best candidate we have right now for '12. I'm hoping we see a lot of new names. Forget the crappy ones we've already looked over. Except for Fred Thompson, but that ain't gonna happen.

Darcy said...

I'll add again that she is way too smart to run in '12, anyway. Her influence is going to continue to be pure joy to watch.

garage mahal said...

You'll never understand the live and let live libertarian mindset that just wants to be left alone and doesn't want any part of your damned social engineering and financial confiscatory shenanigans..

Yet you live in one of the most liberal areas in the country you could possibly choose. And your small government savior hails from the biggest drug riddled Fed dollar sucking welfare state in the Union. But she pisses of liberals! The only office holding qualification needed if you're a "conservative". It's just breathtaking how absolutely full of shit your movement really is.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Calm down for a minute Hoosier Daddy, you're getting our identities mixed up and reason too.

I am calm :-)

Jason my point wasn't that Biden was a moron too so Palin should get a pass but rather the flat out bias displayed when Palin was slammed for not being able to handle an interview yet Biden is given a pass, if not outright praise for exhibting some of the most blatent stupidity imagionable by a VP candidate.

Personally I thought she was good on the stump and bad in a structured interview. I'm only asking for a bit of honesty from the other side is all. Tall order I admit but I'm still leaving it on the table.

Bob From Ohio said...

Romney was the "Establishment" candidate in 2008 too. Didn't help him then. He will not be the nominee. He can't beat my cat south of the Mason Dixon like in South Carolina. Not likely to win Iowa either against either Huckabee or Palin (if she runs).

Pawlenty is boring. If we are to nominate a boring white governor, might as well go with a more authentic version like Mitch Daniels.

Palin does have general election problems but among GOPers, far, far less. In Iowa, a caucas state, the intensitity of her support wil be important. Iowa on the GOP side is a big Right to Life state too. If she finishes first in Iowa, skips New Hampshire (Romney's turf) and crushes Romney in South Carolina, he's done.

Seven Machos said...

Palin is no more qualified to be president than Obama is. If she wants to be president, she should start by being a senator from Alaska, and finishing a term. I have said in these pages that Palin will be content earning millions and influencing policy. I hope to be proven prescient.

As for Pawlenty, I am supportive. Pawlenty-Daniels 2012 sounds very formidable. Daniels-Pawlenty would be even better, philosophically. Who gives a better stump speech?

Paul said...

My take, having seen Palin's interview with Marie Bartiromo before she was a VP candidate in which she did a fine job, is that a) she was given bad advice from her handlers contrary to her own instincts, and b) was facing bewilderingly hostile interviewers who also used unscrupulous editing techniques to show her in as unflattering a light as possible.

Let's see how she does from here on out without the handicaps and with the tempering experience of fighting against people who play with a stacked deck.

I think she is going to surprise a lot of people.

Seven Machos said...

Bob -- There is fundamentally no way that Huckabee is a serious contender in 2012, even in Iowa. Your whole analysis is suspect because you suggested this.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's just breathtaking how absolutely full of shit your movement really is

Maybe if you demonstrate if he's getting a federal welfare check you'd have a point there garage. It's liberals like you who have advocated for all this Federal dollar welfare state so where one lives in the country its simply a matter of degrees.

What is breathtaking is how folks like you have no problem demanding that we give up more of our money to assuage some liberal guilt you happen to be carrying because someone, somewhere is down on thier luck.

Put your money where your big mouth is and start donating that extra percentage of your paycheck you think the rest of us heartless fucks want to keep for ourselves to the government or some charity that will do the good works you feel need to be done.

Then come tell me whose movement is full of shit.

Darcy said...

I agree with you, Paul.

ricpic said...

If the Republicans are in it just for the money that's fine with me. Give me rule by greedy bastards over rule by wild eyed ideologues any day of the week. And I'm not trying to be cute. People chasing dollars are pussycats compared to world changers.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't see Pawlenty having a serious chance in 2012. The serious contenders are likely to be Palin, Romney, and maybe Huckelbee. Why, because they ran and were contenders in 2008.

The Democrats, since LBJ left office, have elected three Presidents, and all of them the first time they seriously ran for President. The Republicans, on the other hand, just don't do that. The only thing close was GWB, but then his father had served as President eight years earlier. This goes back to Nixon, who had been VP for eight years, then run and lost against Kennedy in 1960. Oh, I forgot Goldwater, who probably doesn't fit in here.

With that minor exception, it seems to be that for a Democrat to win the Presidency, he needs to be a fresh face, whom the American people don't know. But for a Republican to win their nomination, he has to be known on the national level and probably to have run for national office before.

Paul said...

"Yet you live in one of the most liberal areas in the country you could possibly choose."

Hey garage you asshole there's nothing liberal about it. I can't even express my political beliefs and expect to work!! The fascist groupthink is as anti-liberal as you can get.

The cost of living is high and the state is broke, thanks to your "liberal" policies.

The climate and scenery are the best in the nation however.

Alaska is mostly federal land, thus the federal dollars. Everyone I know who vists Alaska, liberal and conservative alike, raves about it.

Your petty little fact twisting mind is a disgusting curiosity to behold.

Seven Machos said...

Why are people giving any credence whatsoever to Huckabee?

Further, Bruce, I disagree. The Republicans want fresh and new this time because the pre-2008 political class of Republicans proved itself to be shit.

former law student said...

the Obamaesque support she's getting from the right.

Yes. Palin suffers from Pretty Girl Syndrome -- the right wants to love her so they are ascribing all sorts of positive qualities to her. She is almost being treated like Chauncey Gardener.

But I don't believe she's stupid, either, I think she can learn what she would need to know to be able to function competently -- but she couldn't learn it all in two weeks.

But what is her career path? How is she preparing herself to hold the next job up?

Paul said...

Seven Machos I disagree Palin is as unqualified as Obama.

She has run a business, a city, and a state. She also ran up against and defeated a corrupt political machine.

She is infinitely more qualified than a Marxist community agitator and faux academic.

And since when was being a Senator a qualification for the job of chief executive?

former law student said...

Why are people giving any credence whatsoever to Huckabee?

Huckabee is the social conservatives' standard-bearer. You fiscal conservative/cheap bastard/"libertarians" ignore the social conservatives at your peril

Diamondhead said...

Just give us a candidate who can articulate conservative principles. We haven't had one of those in twenty-five years.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem is that the Republicans don't have a perfect candidate. Romney may have been able to beat Obama by handling the financial crisis (much) better than McCain did. Romney has the education, training, and experience to have actually contributed there, while Obama just looked wise on the sidelines, doing and saying essentially nothing.

I like the guy, and was a supporter of his until he conceded to McCain. BUT, I don't see him as the candidate in 2012 precisely because he is Ivy League educated like Obama, only more so (two Harvard graduate degrees, not one, and done without Affirmative Action). Running a guy on his brains and credentials, when the Obama Administration is running the country into the ground filled with that sort of people, is just not going to work.

Which is why I think an anti-Obama candidate is going to be more successful. That leaves Palin, Pawlenty, and Huckabee. Huckabee is just too liberal fiscally, and too tied to religious conservatives to win the nomination, esp. with candidates with more national exposure available who are fiscal conservatives and acceptable to the religious conservatives.

That leaves Palin and Pawlenty, and I don't think that he has the charisma to win, man a womano.

We shall see.

former law student said...

She has run a business, a city, and a state.

She has run a small business, a village (of some 5500 people), and an unpopulated state.

Being Senator would put her on the national stage while she learns about national and international issues.

Seven Machos said...

There's no question that Palin the Obama of the right. Think about it:

Great speech. Great speech.
Young. Young.
Total novice. Total novice.
Minority. Woman.
And both arisen from obscurity by a single act of coronation (Obama's DNC speech, Palin's RNC speech).

And FLS's Chauncey Gardener analogy is right on. Palin stands for whatever you stand for, because you don't really know what Palin stands for. All you righties who love Palin yet criticize Obama for his abject inexperience need to rethink your position. There's a serious contradiction.

knox said...

But she pisses of liberals! The only office holding qualification needed if you're a "conservative"

Oh please. It's been obvious for a long time that a hell of a lot of liberals are self-obsessed navel-gazers. The rest of us, however, are not nearly as fascinated by you. And we hardly choose our candidates by what you all think of them. Though some of us may find enjoyment in the fact that you all dismiss Palin as dumb and irrelevant ... but then somehow manage to let her drive you crazy simultaneously.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hey garage you asshole there's nothing liberal about it. I can't even express my political beliefs and expect to work!! The fascist groupthink is as anti-liberal as you can get.

The cost of living is high and the state is broke, thanks to your "liberal" policies.

The climate and scenery are the best in the nation however.


I'm guessing Paul lives in the same State as myself. California.

I agree with his analysis of Palin as well. She was sideswiped by McCain's campaign people and purposely made to look really bad by the professional hack job media.

She may not be as polished as a Romney or Pawlenty, but she is no dummy. In addition, her message of small government, independence, energy development resonates with conservatives and moderates.

Seven Machos said...

Paul -- You can't seriously argue that Palin is more qualified than Obama. But that doesn't matter. Here's what matters: can you convince 51 percent of the electorate that Palin has enough experience (especially with Obama's rocky start still fresh in the American memory)?

You can't.

Bruce Hayden said...

Huckabee is the social conservatives' standard-bearer. You fiscal conservative/cheap bastard/"libertarians" ignore the social conservatives at your peril.

But he is not fiscally conservative, and after the massive debts and borrowing that are happening under Obama's watch, that is going to be key to both getting the Republican nomination and winning the general election.

What is needed in view of the social conservatives is someone who is acceptable to them. Not maybe their favorite, but someone who talks the talk and walks the walk. They don't have to preach it, like he does, if they do. I am thinking right now about a candidate who refused to get an abortion, after discovering that she would have a Down's syndrome baby. For social conservatives, that is walking the walk.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Daddy: Do you really think Palin is dumb? I thought she was ill-prepared for the national spotlight, but I've never had the impression that she is dumb.

Darcy

No I don't think she's dumb but I don't think she's an intellectual either. I think Clinton is pretty smart and Nixon was too. But smarts isn't the endgame for being President. Competence is and being smart enough to know you're not smart enough to know it all and get smart people to help you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

She has run a small business, a village (of some 5500 people), and an unpopulated state.

Which is more than the Boy King has.

Being Senator would put her on the national stage while she learns about national and international issues.

Not sure that would work. Biden's been in the senate almost as long as Obama stopped crapping his pants and he's no more qualified than Obama is.

Bruce Hayden said...

Paul -- You can't seriously argue that Palin is more qualified than Obama. But that doesn't matter. Here's what matters: can you convince 51 percent of the electorate that Palin has enough experience (especially with Obama's rocky start still fresh in the American memory)?

Actually, I think that you could have made that argument easily before January of this year. Obama had zero qualifications, and it is showing.

Now - of course Obama is more qualified. By November, 2012, he will be more qualified for the job than anyone else in this country who is eligible to run, except maybe GHWB and Jimmy Carter, if they are still alive then.

But you do make a good point, that this will be used against anyone who runs against Obama in 2012, and in particular, Sarah Palin.

Bruce Hayden said...

No I don't think she's dumb but I don't think she's an intellectual either. I think Clinton is pretty smart and Nixon was too. But smarts isn't the endgame for being President. Competence is and being smart enough to know you're not smart enough to know it all and get smart people to help you.

I have often found it amusing that probably the two smartest Presidents of my lifetime are the two who faced impeachment. Nixon had the class to resign before the House could vote, while Clinton did not.

garage mahal said...

The cost of living is high and the state is broke, thanks to your "liberal" policies..

Brainiac, a Republican is your governor. You might want to start there.

Seven Machos said...

Bruce -- Exactly. The Obama-has-no-idea-what-he's-doing meme isn't going anywhere. Republicans could use it to their advantage, or piss it away by nominating Palin, who failed to complete her term as governor and has about the same experience as Obama...did in 2008.

Thus, the perfectly rational Democratic response to any claims about experience if Palin is the nominee: Yeah, Obama had a rocky start. But he's now had four years of experience. Trial by fire! A crucible! Do you really want to vote for someone with no experience and go through that learning curve all over again?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Again. I really don't see her as a candidate in 2012. I would think that she is smart enough to realize this and given the power she is able to wield from the side lines, she would be foolish to try at this time.

As much as I would love to see he run and listen to the sounds of liberals' heads popping all across the country, I would really not like to have Palin on the ticket. I think it would split the ticket too many ways and might actually ensure a Democrat win.

Her best and highest use (financial term) would be as a "King Maker" and "Rainmaker". Bring in the votes. Also to help the doofuses that the Republicans usually run to be able to get the message out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am so sick of all the pussyfooting and double speak and political correctness that obscures anything that the Politicians say. Quit being nice. Play to win and for God's sake....say what you mean.

That's why I admire Joe Wilson for saying EXACTLY what the rest of us were yelling at the television during Obama's speech. YOU LIE!!!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Brainiac, a Republican is your governor. You might want to start there.


He's a RINO.

garage mahal said...

Ah. Of course! *head smack*

former law student said...

Brainiac, a Republican is your governor. You might want to start there.

Is this a reference to Ah-nult? A Republican who believes that greenhouse gases create climate change is beyond atypical.

Schwarzenegger tried to keep the Democratic majority from setting spending levels in good years that were unsustainable through half of even an ordinary business cycle. However California Democrats, if they consider recessions at all, think of them as opportunities to increase spending to help out the newly broke.

If California Democrats could only grasp what my dog was able to learn: when something is "all gone" begging for more will do you no good.

Seven Machos said...

California should be split in half. It's too unwieldy. Gi-normous states only work if the population is sparse.

Paul said...

"Brainiac, a Republican is your governor. You might want to start there."

Like I said, a fact twisting petty mind.

This state is run by Democrats and has been for a long time.

Arnold ran as a Republican, put up a bunch of good ballot initiatives, got thumped by the leftist machine, and folded like a cheap suit. He traded in a Hummer for a Prius, and is like DBQ says, a RINO.

Of course being the lying little creep you are you know this and yet you'll robotically claim over and over that California is a mess because our governor has an R after his name.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Brainiac, a Republican is your governor. You might want to start there.

Yeah Paul you moron! Didn't you know Ahnold has been running California into the ground with those liberal tax and spend policies for the last 20 years? I mean WTF dude!

garage its a good thing you're here to set those moron wingnuts straight. I mean your intelligence on these matters is invaluable.

Paul said...

FLS-

You are right.

For once.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Ah. Of course! *head smack*

Right garage. Arnold is a Republican like Zell Miller is a Democrat.

Hey garage, isn't it something that President Shortpants has the Grinch over there in Copenhagen trying to sweet talk Chicago? I mean I would have thought he would have sent Secretary of State Cankles to do that kind of diplomatic work rather than his wife.

How the mighty have fallen.

Cedarford said...

Andrew D. said...
Oh, please please respect Sarah!!
The republicans need their own Eugene McCarthy experience. And Obama needs an opponent whose base would assure her of, oh, five or six states!


Andrew, you missed the Goldwater debacle. Greatest disaster the Republicans ever had. That required a complete Party rebuild by the likes of Nixon, Romney, Rockefeller after all Goldwater gor was Arizona and 4-5 Deep south anti-Civil Rights, Religious Right States.
Myth-making by Reagan extreme right-wingers say Goldwater was RIGHT and gifted us with Reagan and voodoo economics - but it was the effective end of Republicans as a Party of miniorities, Jews.

====================
Miller -
I have lots of respect for Palin and would vote for her, if only to watch liberals' heads explode in rage.


That was the rationale of a lot of Goldwater backers...show them thar eggheads and people with fancy degrees a thing or two and stop with all the nigger love..Make-Thar-Pointy-Heads Explode!!!!

The result was the Republican Party self-gutted itself. And the Landslide LBJ and the Democrats got enabled 30 more years of Democrats in charge in Congress, the Great Society, Welfare, criminal rights, loss in Vietnam..
And 20 more years where the "spirit of the Warren Court" perservered.

All cause some thought Goldwater made people's heads explode and would "send a message" from the conservatively PURE.

===================
Nixon and other centrist's ability to rebuild the Party in 4 years is considered one of the greatest feats in American politics. Had Wallace not run as the Southern Religious Right candidate in 1968, NIxon would have had two massive victories instead of one.
========================

Dust Bunny Queen said...

California should be split in half. It's too unwieldy. Gi-normous states only work if the population is sparse.

Preaching to the choir. We've been begging for this since before WWII

State of Jefferson. Of course they won't let us go because they want our water, minerals, timber, geothermal power, hydro power and other resources.

Paul said...

Seven-

"Paul -- You can't seriously argue that Palin is more qualified than Obama. But that doesn't matter. Here's what matters: can you convince 51 percent of the electorate that Palin has enough experience (especially with Obama's rocky start still fresh in the American memory)?"

Of course I can. I already did. But far more important than experience is her understanding of the American ideal of individual liberty and limited government power vs. Obama's central planning- Communist oriented ideology.

If you can't grasp that monumentally important distinction you are not even worth talking to.

garage mahal said...

Conservatism can NEVER fail! Only we can fail conservatism. If Bush or Arnold, or whoever, fucked things up beyond recognition, it can't possibly be their fault. Damn liberals not running things. Their fault! Get your ass kicked in two straight elections? ACORN!

traditionalguy said...

The Sarahcuda told us that she was a point guard being tripple teamed an Alaskan Ethics Charades sent out by Democrats in mass to destroy her. So she had the point guard's guts to Execute the best counter move and re-start the offense from a better place. To say "She is a quitter" for doing that is only kindergarten whining from opponents that have no real charges they can use about her great move. The "Palin is a complainer meme" is pure BS. She has shown continual courage under intense fire of made up nonsense charges against her existence made by every Media person in America gratis on behalf of the Democrat Machine. She is not interested in not running while posturing like a Fake WWF Wrestler...she is the real thing and she is going for the win.

Paddy O. said...

"Huckabee is the social conservatives standard-bearer"

I'm a social conservative and he's not my standard-bearer. I would vote for anyone else other than Huckabee.

He's the standard-bearer for some social conservatives, at least he was in 2008. But, in 2008 there was not anyone else who really tapped into the established Evangelical vote (Huckabee's primary audience).

I think Sarah Palin really blunts some of Huckabee's appeal. Plus, he's not really making any splash anymore and is off the radar. Which is a bad sign if he wants support.

Darcy said...

Seven: I disagree that Palin supporters (and I don't mean particularly as a presidential candidate) don't know what she stands for. I think she's been very clear. I think Paul and DBQ have articulated it very well.

Paul said...

Garage cements his lead as stupidest commenter on the internet! That phos upstart was gaining on him but garage just lit the afterburners and smoked his ass.

Alex said...

It doesn't really matter who the GOP nominates, the MSM will make sure St. Barack gets reelected.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You know come 2010 I will be curious to see if garage becomes completely unhinged if the Democrats get thier asses kicked like its looking to be.

Then again considering they can't even coalesce the huge majorities they have to pass such vital health care legislation that people like garage think the nation will collapse if we don't get, maybe the GOP doesn't need to win.

Paddy O. said...

"Of course they won't let us go because they want our water, minerals, timber, geothermal power, hydro power and other resources."

Well, we do say thank you and make kind comments on occasion.

You're always welcome to come down and enjoy our warm, sunny beaches in exchange. I mean if there's any space left on the beach.

Alex said...

You know for the so-called conservatives riding Sarah for resigning, you make me sick. You know very well why she had to resign, or she'd be dealing with faux-ethics investigations to the end of her term and YOU KNOW IT.

Synova said...

"I thought I did, until seven machos revealed he qualified for reduced-price school lunch as a kid.

Maybe we damned social engineers and wealth-confiscators should have let the little bastard go hungry.
"

fls, I qualified for reduced-price school lunches, welfare, and whatever else when I was a kid. My dad said NO. He didn't say HELL NO, because he never swore. He saw no virtue in taking government help until HE decided we needed it. It was about dignity.

What really bothers you is that many of those of us who are (more or less) libertarian or who promote capitalism as the best course, grew up poor, often really poor... and that blows your mind, because libertarians and capitalists are supposed to be fat cats who are hateful and cruel to the poor little folk who struggle so hard to make it.

On the contrary... those of us who grew up with very little see government intervention as a plan to kick us in the teeth for the sin of doing better now, or if we manage to do better in the future to make sure we feel guilty for it and don't benefit too much.

What sort of person plans to stay in poverty forever?

And then we're lectured about how the conservative poor, those who are religious or who are not, who grew up on food stamps or AFDC or even those who *didn't* on account of growing their own food and shopping at the Salvation Army... we're lectured on how WE do not understand our own best interests... which are supposedly to increase the invasiveness of government, take even more money from someone else, and give us some more government cheese.

Would you really be grateful to someone who reduced the scope of your best interests to the issue of getting more cheese?

Alex said...

You know come 2010 I will be curious to see if garage becomes completely unhinged if the Democrats get thier asses kicked like its looking to be.

You know I'm convinced that the MSM will make sure that the 'Pubs make only minimal gains if any in 2010. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but unless proven otherwise that's my new default position.

Paul said...

Hoosier Daddy-

The dude is already unhinged. The only place left for him to go is the clock tower with a high powered rifle or, hopefully, self immolation.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Garage cements his lead as stupidest commenter on the internet!

You know back in the day before President Shortpants was still the very junior senator from Illinois, garage was a thoughtful and contributing member who had some interesting (if wrongheaded) things to say.

Then when Senator Shortpants kicked Senator Cankles ass in the primaries garage has gone off the deep end. He was a big Hillary backer back then and we at one point thought he might actually come to the side of the light when he saw how horrible President Shortpants treated his girl. I mean there is politics and then there is kicking someone in the balls like President Shortpants did. Not saying Hillary has balls, just a turn of phrase. Anyway, rather than come to the side of light, garage was seduced by the Dark Side and now is a loyal and servant of Emperor Shortpants, hence his knee jerk defense of anything that questions the power of liberalism.

Alex said...

Synova - it's the position of liberals that poor people who continue to vote GOP are voting against their own economic interests, which I deduce to mean unionization and more generous welfare programs.

garage mahal said...

You know come 2010 I will be curious to see if garage becomes completely unhinged if the Democrats get thier asses kicked like its looking to be.

If and when that ever happens, I will surely let you know! I don't see any signs of a Republican resurrection though. Do you?

Paul said...

"You know I'm convinced that the MSM will make sure that the 'Pubs make only minimal gains if any in 2010. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but unless proven otherwise that's my new default position."

Alex the MSM is tied to Teh Won who is sinking like a stone and they are going down with him. They will have but a fraction of their former influence come 2010 and especially 2012.

The scales are falling from America's eyes and they are going to blame the Marxists and their MSM enablers for taking a bad situation and making it so much worse.

Just look at those kids and their Acorn videos.

A change is coming.

Alex said...

Paul:

The scales are falling from America's eyes and they are going to blame the Marxists and their MSM enablers for taking a bad situation and making it so much worse.

Cites? Links? You have no evidence. Even RCP average shows Obama consistently above 50% and the Democrats consistently polling above Republicans on all issues. Wishful thinking, my friend. Time to take to the hills...

Paul said...

Hoosier Daddy-

I know. Garage's monumental stupidity is of the willful variety. That's why he deserves our scorn and mockery.

That and the fact that he's dishonest to the core.

Ah but he's a "liberal" so I am being redundant.

Alex said...

Well to garage's credit he often provides cite and links. I don't like his ideology, but his side is winning and so he gloats.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If and when that ever happens, I will surely let you know! I don't see any signs of a Republican resurrection though. Do you?

Its possible garage. I've read a few reports that you guys might lose like 20 seats. But as I said, no biggie if the GOP stays where it is. President Shortpants can't seem to lead his own party to pass his pet project anyway. Heck if this is the best ya'll can do I'm content to kick back with my popcorn and watch the show.

Paul said...

Alex,

The evidence is in Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings everywhere. The evidence is in Obama's numbers trending in one direction in spite of the MSM's best efforts. The evidence is in the Democrats inability to pass the bills in their agenda in spite of controlling both houses and the Oval Office, because the public rejects them. The evidence is in the dismissal of Van Jones and the fall of Acorn.

And this is just eight months in. Wait until the next series of shoes drop. There will be some big ones too. Guaranteed.

Alex said...

It would be nice to have a huge GOP victory so I could gloat in garage's face. That would be worth it.

1jpb said...

"If California Democrats could only grasp what my dog was able to learn: when something is "all gone" begging for more will do you no good."

Those Ds should learn from another CA gov turned pres.

When the federal budget is all spent, in no small part due to tax cuts for rich folks; you do two things.

First, start running huge non-war-time deficits, because (as everybody knows) deficit spending will be fixed by trickle economics, spending more than you have, deregulation, and privatizing government services (because corporations love you, hence the honor system will ensure that they'll do the right thing).

Second, change FICA funding so that this program actually runs huge annual surpluses (while explicitly taxing rich folks at zero percent--i.e. the folks who are getting the most dollar benefit from income taxes must be exempted from the FICA tax that will be used to fill holes in the federal budget created by the tax cuts for rich folks--but the FICA payers will get IOUs as their money is diverted to fill in the hole left by income tax breaks for rich folks.) then when the government's net revenue goes up (beyond the basic increase associated w/ the occurrence of what averaged out to be slightly better than typical economic growth rates, and these relatively modest growth rate increases were bought and paid for because of a deficit disaster and declining middle class real incomes in the future.) because you've increased the FICA tax on average Americans you can say that tax cuts increased net revenue, but don't mention that FICA taxes were raised for average Americans and this huge surplus of $ is used up and replaced w/ IOUs.

Maybe mocking the "lock box" wasn't wise after all.

BTW, can I get a 'hell yes' from the $100k plus commenters. Isn't it awesome to see the FICA tax go away when you start earning real dough. It's even better to see the professional conservatives adding up the so-called accumulative tax rates, as if they don't know that the FICA drops to zero, or as if they don't know that there offsets and crediting associated with the interaction between federal and state income taxes, or as if they don't know that self-employed high wage earners can seriously work the tax code to their benefit (sorry W-2 earners). Then, the fans of these pro-cons repeat the "data" regarding the accumulative tax burden because they (unlike the pro-cons) don't know about making decent dough themselves. Ha ha.

garage mahal said...

The evidence is in Obama's numbers trending in one direction in spite of the MSM's best efforts.

Trending up? Doh!

garage mahal said...

It would be nice to have a huge GOP victory so I could gloat in garage's face. That would be worth it.

That would be great, wouldn't it!

Cedarford said...

MadisonMan said...
"The simply fact is that Sarah Palin is the only one with the Intestional Fortitude needed to take the winning shots with the game on the line."

Her resignation as Governor calls this analysis into question.


Have to agree with MadisonMan -

Add she also quit her two significant appointed jobs - Oil & Gas Commissioner and being picked as VP nominee a la Quayle without showing any ability to handle pressure in Party Primaries.

And she did quit as VP. Palin was selected to help elect McCain..not champion Palin or "her adoring fans". And she walked away from that job....just as many believe John Edwards went AWOL on Kerry..

Too many people confuse talking tough with being tough.
=========================
edutcher said...
As for Romney, I think Mass Health dooms him.


Unfortunately, there is a camp of ideologues who believe fiscal, moral, and trade realities can be ignored about US healthcare...Who see any Republican who has to work with Democrats in forging solutions, like Jindal or Romney, is automatically a RINO and doomed.
That healthcare, despite costing 50-100% more than our rivals, putting us in 37 trillion in debt we cannot afford so far - crippling our ability to compete, and jeopardizing over 10% of the US population not covered with prospects of physical or financial doom..Mustn't be touched by Republicans who wish to remain PURE in the eyes of white non-college voters in rural Alabama.

By their reasoning, anyone outside Fundie-land who has to lead and govern is a RINO. Leaving only Deep Southerners, an Alaskan oddball, and various talk show pundits as the Pure and Worthy.
(By their standards, Reagan, who pumped money into the Socialist California university system, passed environmental laws under Dem pressure, as well as the nation's most liberal abortion law was a goddamn RINO who didn't deserve the nomination..)

Hoosier - Palin is dumb and unqualified but Biden isn't and is? I mean Biden doesn't just drop the ball, he fumbles it, recovers and runs to the wrong fucking endzone yet the MSM and company completely ignore what a complete idiot he is.

The difference was Dems had long ago concluded Biden was unfit to be President. During the primaries, he polled in the 2-3% range. He was selected as the "experience, foreign policy wonk old white guy" to balance a young President unlikely to die but was defecient in experience in foreign policy.
Palin was selected as the inexperienced "rogue" to back up another rogue who was at significant actuarial odds to die in his first term from cancer returning or some other malady - given his age and apparant incoherence.

=================
AJ Lynch said...
It's too early to tell what message the voters will want the most. If the economy continues to crater [jobless recovery and all that], Romney's message will be #1.


By 2011, odds are that America will be pretty sick of ideologically pure "message candidates"...who have no track record of executive leadership performance and deemed "qualified" only because they told their respective "Bases" what they wanted to hear...as Seven Machos noted to be the case with both Obama "Hopey Changey!" and Palin "Yah Betcha those Bigshots need some goo 'ol Hockey Mom Wisdom!" (Pity the Wise Latina hadn't attended games as a hockey mom...she would have had no opposition from right-wingers, then).

Paul said...

Ooooh he's up 2 points in the Democrat friendly Gallup poll!!!

Of course down how many since his inauguration?

Your spin job is just another way to lie. But hey it's the one thing your sorry ass is good at so go for it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@garage

I don't know what chart you are looking at that makes you so happy. If this were a stock chart and I were doing the technical analysis that I do for stocks as compared to the fundamental analysis (which I also do) I would not be recommending that you buy the stock on the top of the chart (dark green color) unless you were a very aggressive investor and your investment didn't represent a large portion of your portfolio.

In other words. Obama is a tanking stock with an over all negative trend. I don't know if I would even recommend a "hold" on that stock especially since it is a new company without much track record or history. Your stock has lost 23% of its value in just 8 months. This is not boding well for the over all return in your portfolio.


In fact I would definitely urge you to place a stop loss order on that investment.

Now for fundamental analysis.... oh.... never mind I don't' have the time, and you wouldn't get it anyway

Hoosier Daddy said...

I guess it depends on whose doing the polling eh garage?

Doh!

Then again garage you'd think that if President Shortpants was so popular, this health care thing would be a shoe in. I mean with that massive Democrat controlled Congress.

Seriously what is the problem with you guys? Are you that divided internally or just incompetent?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Seven Nachos: Why are people giving any credence whatsoever to Huckabee?

He's a big government social conservative. Other than saying "family" and "God" a lot, he wont be much different from Obama. Plus he seems corrupt. Taking time out of his presidential campaign to give seminars and collect speaking fees in the Caribbean didn't help.

Diamondhead said...

The scales are falling from America's eyes and they are going to blame the Marxists and their MSM enablers for taking a bad situation and making it so much worse.

Too optimistic, I'm afraid. Spreading the wealth around will be popular enough to win elections until there's no wealth left. The old America - the one where people wanted to make their own way free of government interference - is about to go dormant. The tea parties, the town halls - just a significant minority struggling against the inevitable. It will take 40 years of European-style statism before the scales begin to fall from our eyes. By that time the bureacracy will be so entrenched that it will be impossible to displace.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It would be nice to have a huge GOP victory so I could gloat in garage's face. That would be worth it.

Hell I don't need a GOP victory to gloat. His party has controlled Congress since 2006, and now has a rubber stamp majority and they still can't accomplish Obama's pet project without something remotely looking like a consensus.

Yeah I can't wait to see Cap and Trade try and get through the Senate. That will be a real hoot!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Now for fundamental analysis.... oh.... never mind I don't' have the time, and you wouldn't get it anyway

Oh go ahead and tell me DBQ. I grew up around liberals all my life so I am fluent in moron. I can translate it.

Alex said...

Diamondhead - America was much more socialist from 1930s to the early 1960s before JFK got in. Let's keep some perspective now. Remember 50% unionization rates and 90% top marginal tax rate? And even by the unemployment metric we haven't hit 1982 levels, YET.

garage mahal said...

Seriously what is the problem with you guys? Are you that divided internally or just incompetent?

You already know the answer. A handful of Wall Street Democrats. It's really not too hard to figure out. Insurance companies pay Democrat. Democrat votes against reform.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1jpb said...

"I would highly recommend the light green stock not only because of the rise in value, but also because it has a much bigger upside in terms of continued growth."

I don't know about that; if BHO's predecessor is any guide there could be a whole room for either line to continue in their respective current average trajectories.

But seriously, I don't think Rs should be too excited until BHO is consistently below 50 (even Rasmussen currently has him at 50 overall/somewhat approval).

Dust Bunny Queen said...

aagh brain fart. wrong math in my previous post. It would have to fall/drop by 74% to get back to the original amount.

In addition back to the chart. The light green stock is (fixed) up by approx 280% in the same amount of time.

I would highly recommend the light green stock not only because of the rise in value, but also because it has a much bigger upside in terms of continued growth.

And since the fundamentals industry sectors of the two stocks have radically changed in the last year, the dark green stock doesn't appear to have the ability to recover its industry position. Consumer sentiment and the economic data tend to favor the light green stock as a continued growth prospect in the next few years.

Don't argue with me. This is what I do for a living and have done for 20 years....and my clients are happy campers....even in this economy

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The dark green stock line reminds me very much of the IPO's that were hot in the 90's and early 2000's. Start at the top with a lot of hype and people who want to be hip or get in on the latest technology or newest industry would buy in at the inflated IPO price.

When more information about the company came out, more clarity about the marketability of the products the company made or clearer financial information (such as there is no E in the P/E ratio) the value of the stock would tank. Investors were, and many still are, stuck with a position that will never get close to the IPO. Maybe they can declare a tax loss against a gain someday.

The only investors who made out were those who bought and sold early on in the heady days right after the initial IPO. The suckers were those who thought they were going to cut a fat hog and leapt before they did any real research into the company. (any of this sound familiar?)

Cedarford said...

traditionalguy said...
The Sarahcuda told us that she was a point guard being tripple teamed an Alaskan Ethics Charades sent out by Democrats in mass to destroy her. So she had the point guard's guts to Execute the best counter move and re-start the offense from a better place. To say "She is a quitter" for doing that is only kindergarten whining from opponents that have no real charges they can use about her great move..


She quit as oil and gas commissioner.
She quit the McCain campaign.
She quit as Governor.

There is no way to sugarcoat these moves as "brilliant tactical end-arounds".

They are what they are. Bails.

You are a hiring manager and you have a great-looking woman in your office who has glowing letters of boosters saying she is charismatic, talks well, and has an "inspiring biography" as a former athlete and beauty contestant. On that, she gets past HR for an interview as a candidate for Executive Manager of your West Coast business...a tough job and one that needs a 4 year commitment.

You note she was appointed to manage a small business but then quit, saying the business was crooked.
Then she was appointed to "lead change" in another firm and didn't support the CEO and was tossed along with him by the shareholders.
Finally she was elected by a Board to head a smaller business which she lasted a year and a half on before leaving as a "lame duck" , as she called it, where she was under heavy criticism she didn't want to put up with...Then to make money on the inspirational lecture circuit for a few years..talks all about Her Ideas and Her Travails..
Now she wants a new job, a tough job that requires 4 years of toughness and total commitment...

What are the odds she will be hired in???

===============
On Obama's popularity polls - He has deferred most domestic agenda to Pelosi, Holder, and Geithner...so his acolytes and middle America cannot fixate on The One as the culprit in anything domestic - yet. But soon enough, healthcare & cap 'n trade and new bailouts will land at his desk.

In foreign policy - Obama has been all Hopey Changey with no hard decisions YET...Iran, Afghanistan, Illegal immigration, or some new grave crisis will soon require The One to have to take a personal stand, to make a choice and decision and try to lead off of it.

He will be forced to give vaulted Obama orations that have to have more than fuzzy feel-good words - but elaborate hard calls that rest square on his narrow shoulders..

THEN get back to us on The One's poll numbers!

1jpb said...

DBQ,

Er...you know that public approval polling isn't stock analysis, right?

Maybe you should put this polling from 81 to 88 into your model.

Bob From Ohio said...

Seven Machos, you don't like Huckabee so your judgment is cloudy.

The reason I give Huckabee credence in 2012 in Iowa is because he won last time. Rather easily considering how crowded the race.

"On January 3, 2008, The Caucuses in Iowa began. The final averaged results from Real Clear Politics showed Mike Huckabee at 30%, Romney at 27%, McCain and Thompson tied at 12%, Paul at 7%, and Giuliani at 6%.[6] Among those surveyed in Exit Polling data, 45% cited themselves as very conservative and voted for Huckabee 35% to Romney's 23% and Thompson's 22%. Among those who called themselves "somewhat conservative" (43%), Huckabee won 34% to Romney's 27% and McCain's 18%.[7]

Final Results showed Huckabee swept much of the state with the exception of the western and eastern portions of the state which included Davenport, Cedar Rapids, as well as Sioux City. Romney swept the eastern and western portions of the state and Paul took one southern county. The final results in Iowa were Huckabee with 34%, Romney with 25%, Thompson and McCain each with 13%, Paul with 10% and Giuliani with 4%."

Against Palin in 2012, his votes get cut. Without her, the evangelicals in Iowa vote for him again.

Huckabee has Romney's problem in reverse. He's very weak in the North.

1jpb said...

Assuming Cedarford is correct and BHO is shown to be a totally unprepared light weight. It would make sense for the Rs in 2012 to use this as their main theme. How does Palin make that argument? Perhaps: 'BHO was a totally inexperienced, unprepared lightweight so vote for me because I'm the experienced one.'

But, really I always thought that Palin was a true believer of the professional conservatives talking points. So, in addition to calling BHO unprepared for the office I can totally see her saying that BHO hates America (quoting Rush) because he is a grievance reverse racist political thug (sort-of paraphrasing Beck). She was already going in this direction under the thumb of McCain. I don't think she'd hold back w/ this sort of real v. not-real America or terrorist palling stuff--she's a true believer, just like many Althouse commenters.

Palin would be the unfiltered mouth piece for the professional conservatives. It'd be like Rush running for POTUS. A real conservative. That would be something.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

Er...you know that public approval polling isn't stock analysis, right?

errr....you realize that I am making an analogy.

However, the analysis process is exactly the same.

Maybe you should put this polling from 81 to 88 into your model.


That company is out of business and is not relevant to the current company. However, we could possibly draw some historical references and see if the current market forces are similar to those when that stock (Reagan) was trading.

garage mahal said...

@garage

I don't know what chart you are looking at that makes you so happy.
.

I didn't say it made me happy, just that it wasn't trending down as Paul blathered.

But here is a chart, let me know what you think. I'm no genius, but it appears to me there is a trend here.

Paul said...

Nice chart garage. Capitalism is outperformed by Communism!!

And you say you're no genius!!

Now I'd like to introduce you to a few of my expat Russian friends so you can explain to them how that works. I'll help scrape you off the sidewalk afterwards and drive you to the ER.

Promise.

Paul said...

Of course the Dow began it's precipitous tumble last year the day Intrades predicted an Obama victory but....


Look! Squirrel!!!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But here is a chart, let me know what you think. I'm no genius, but it appears to me there is a trend here.


There is a trend and this is where the fundamental analysis takes over from technical charting analysis. You have to look at what market forces and dynamics of the company.

In the case you show (DJIA) going downward, there are several market forces and economic trends that are part of the natural cycle.

The record high price of the stock (DJIA) is a natural selling trigger. The wise investor will also see other opportunities in different markets such as Global Bonds and be able to take their profits from selling the appreciated stock (DJIA) and invest in foreign currencies to take advantage of the currency exchange rate and declining dollar. When there is a imbalance between sellers and buyers (sudden influx of more sellers at a particular time than buyers in this case) the bid/ask nature of an auction market will force the price of the stock lower. Natural market forces.

If we assume that the line represents a company that is in stress from a lack of cash flow (the credit crunch that affects the DOW components) and the uncertainty of known management change (not knowing what the new management policies will be) these will stress the stock and cause a sell of from wise investors who are taking their profits or taking their money out of the game with a wait and see attitude.

When it became apparent that the possible new management was incompetent and would be running the company in a fashion detrimental to the share holders....the sell off is even larger.

As the price of the shares reaches a new low, adventurous and aggressive investors with a short term horizon will purchase the stock (DJIA and components) at the low price and hope to capitalize on the possible growth. This causes a short term recovery in the stock (DJIA). But again as it becomes apparent to the share holders that management is badly mishandling the running of the company, a future sell of is a sure thing.

A wise investor will invest elsewhere or in the case of shareholder demand a change in the Board of Directors and that they fire management and get new leadership in the company.

You're welcome.

Oxbay said...

At 11:59 c3 said: "...I honestly don't get the RINO tag (unless one has a far-right perspective on Republican Orthodoxy.)..."

There is no far-right in the Republican party.

garage mahal said...

Of course the Dow began it's precipitous tumble last year the day Intrades predicted an Obama victory but.....

And it's tumbled back up because? C'mon Paul, dig into that bag of excuses. There must be one for just this topic!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Of course the Dow began it's precipitous tumble last year the day Intrades predicted an Obama victory but.....

"And it's tumbled back up because? C'mon Paul, dig into that bag of excuses. There must be one for just this topic"

Garage is one of those too stupid to help clients that I send packing out of my office to bother another advisor.

Paul said...

It's tumbled part way back up because President Shortpants (I like that nickname) can't seem to get his stupid policies enacted. Seems to rise every time he has a setback. That and the natural fluctuations in the market and the fact that we are still a productive industrious lot in spite of your best efforts to turn us into a nation of beggars and layabouts.

Of course the market could be headed back down again.

But the fact that you linked to a graph that suggests Communism is a superior economic system to Capitalism is like you're just begging to laughed at. You are reflexively, perpetually, automatically stupid and it's fun in a slightly morbid way to watch you keep soiling yourself.

Alas though I must go. I have a gig on a cruise boat on the bay playing for a thousand doctors. I'll bet they are all DYING to see Obamacare implemented!!

garage mahal said...

It's tumbled part way back up because President Shortpants (I like that nickname) can't seem to get his stupid policies enacted..

I just knew you have the perfect excuse handy! So you have nothing to worry about then, right? But what are you and the utterly confused teabaggers marching for then?

Alex said...

garage - tell us what policies Obama has instituted that have brought the Dow back up.

Paul said...

That's why he can't get them enacted douchebag, the people are revolting!!

Jeez this fish-barrel thing is fun but I am out the door. Good luck garage and remember you are invited for some amiable political discourse with my Russian friends who are dying to hear your enlightened views on Socialism's benefits. They are so VERY misinformed on this topic and I'm sure a few words of wisdom from a genius like you will put them right!!

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- It's really true. I spend my days following financial markets. Boiled down, the way markets are right now is risk on/risk off. Risk on means go to high-yielding instruments. Risk-off means take cover in low-yielding instruments.

If Congress were to actually do anything Obama wants, it's risk off.

Having said all that, I think people take any relationship between leftist politics and the stock market is a little too far. It's not a day to day thing. It's more ebb and flow.

That will be $500. I'll send you an invoice for the consulting.

Jeremy said...

The Princess:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akmuckraker/the-real-story-of-the-rog_b_302369.html

garage mahal said...

That's why he can't get them enacted douchebag, the people are revolting!!.

All 10,000??

The policies he is trying to implement, contrary to what you and the media gasbags believe, is widely supported by poll after poll after poll. Remember? He go elected for just that you fucking moron!

garage mahal said...

go=got

Jeremy said...

Alex - Why would anyone take the time to try to explain anything (especially anything relating to financial affairs) to someone as dense as yourself?

All you ever do is whine and bitch about anything relating to President Obama so it's really just a waste of time.

If you really want an answer, maybe you should consider reading a fucking newspaper or hey...maybe even a book.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Risk-off means take cover in low-yielding instruments

Depends on what the instruments are. There is still plenty of risk just different kinds. Interest rate risk.

Alex said...

Jeremy - as usual you can't EVER provide a concrete answer. You can't name one fucking thing Obama has done that would give the stock market confidence. Except for the fact they feel his agenda has been stymied, that FACT can't possibly occur to you?

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- Name three substantive achievements that Obama campaigned for that are now law or policy, or that you believe will be law or policy by November 2010.

And, dude, have a Coke. Chill out. If you are winning, you should be smiling.

Seven Machos said...

Read a fucking newspaper, you dumb motherfuckers, while sucking my dick.

Seven Machos said...

Dust -- I should have just stopped at lower risk. Lower risk is lower risk.

traditionalguy said...

Dear Cedarford...We know why SarahCuda resigned as Governor of Akaska. The Oiland gas Commission move was what you call an end run to achieve an ethics posture that reformed the GOP corruption there. Now when exactly did she quit on the McCain campaign? The McCain campaign placed her ruthlessly into a scapegoat role the day they saw that they could not win.That was because of the Class issue that the professor has been hammering on all day. The McCainites saw themselves as sophisticated experts , and they could not draw a crowd without Palin, which enraged Mad McCain.

MadisonMan said...

I feel obliged to point out to new readers that taking stock advice from the comments here is really foolish. Back in March, the overwhelming chorus was Dead Cat Bounce. That was -- what -- 1500 points on the DJIA ago?

Helluva bounce.

wv: exche -- just missing the quer!

Seven Machos said...

Madison -- Still waiting for that huge dead cat bounce in employment. You let us know.

peter hoh said...

Pawlenty as viewed by a conservative, Minnesota blogger I know:

Link.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I feel obliged to point out to new readers that taking stock advice from the comments here is really foolish.

And I AM obliged by law to point out that I am NOT giving stock advice. I am discussing some of the rationales and techniques used behind stock analysis and general market principles and the various types of risks. Also discussing some of the historical events that may have had effect on the markets.

At no time have I given advice.

Eric said...

Back in March, the overwhelming chorus was Dead Cat Bounce. That was -- what -- 1500 points on the DJIA ago?

As Keynes said, "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." The internet bubble lasted two or three years past the date when you could start saying things like "this stock valuation makes sense if the world economy quadruples in size over the next five years".

The only way I can get the numbers to work for current valuations is to project strong growth for the next decade or so. Given the deflationary environment in which we find ourselves, what is the likelihood we'll see that kind of growth?

MadisonMan said...

I was not referring to what you were saying in March, DBQ. It was others.

reg said...

folks getting your knickers in a twist about 2012 is silly.all these professional politicians are trying to sprint out in front of the pack. as it has been wisely said "a week in politics is a lifetime".Pawlenty, Huckabee,and Romney are up against a marathoner.Muhammad Ali isn't the only one who can do rope a dope.

1jpb said...

Jeremy,

I thought that this was funnier when I followed your link. I've got to assume that the pro-cons will be all upset about this.

It's a little slow to get going but, it's pretty funny. And, there's plenty of self deprecation (which could also be considered mocking the professional conservatives).

Synova said...

Heh... Sarah Palin lectures not selling is still on the sidebar there at HuffPo.

Capitalist that I am, I figure she's pricing herself high because that's how much it's worth to her to be away from her kids. Cost/benefit decisions based on real life concerns and the fact that she has no need to travel.

grapp said...

No, Pawlenty can't clean Obama's clock. In a debate, Pawlenty will be like other establishment Republicans, he'll politely toe the line while Obama lies. In a debate, Sarah Palin will wipe the floor with Obama and then polish the furniture with him. He fears her like cats fear water, especially after her Convention speech take down of him. She knows where he's weak and she aims and fires at those spots with a smile on her face. She'll destroy him the way she did with Biden; worse for Obama, Palin will be gunning especially for him because of the way his minions have savaged her and because of the way he himself has defamed her by calling her a liar. Pawlenty? He's not even on the radar. It's Madame President Palin come 2012.

grapp said...

Alaska is a welfare state only because the Feds insist on it being so. If the Feds would let Alaskans take charge of business in their own state, Alaska would be the saving of America. As Sarah Palin has demonstrated with her pipeline deal, Alaskans can make money from energy and provide it to the Lower 48. That's not a state that's voluntarily a welfare state; that's a state that's forced by the Feds to be an Indian reservation—a welfare state.

grapp said...

Choices.

Please, tell me which of the following is the better and more noble course of action:

1. To run for office, obtain it, and do nothing while in office OR to resign because you're doing nothing?

2. To be in office, be in charge of a committee and hold no meetings OR to resign?

3. To be in office and sponsor no legislation of your own, while having others credit you with legislation that other people have worked long and hard on OR to resign?

4. To be in office and not know the contents of legislation you're touting as essential because you did not read it and have not written a bill of your own OR to resign?

5. To be in office and to be forced to waste the state's time and money, as well as your own, defending yourself against frivolous ethics charges, all of which have been dismissed, OR to resign?

6. To be in office and do nothing else but run for another office while collecting a salary at the taxpayer's expense OR to resign?

7. To be in office and continue campaigning instead of governing while serious issues are set aside OR to resign?

Answers to all these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

1jpb said...

"As Sarah Palin has demonstrated with her pipeline deal"

Maybe she should have stayed in office until there was a certainty regarding the path of the pipeline through the Canadian Indians' land. A pipeline to nowhere is no better than a bridge to the same place.

But, she did need to quit so that she could better support the troops, as she claimed at the time. How's that campaign going? It must be taking a lot of her time now that she can focus on it w/o being Governor.

Palin/JtP 2012!