Reading the comments section, I’m struck often with how much liberals would be happy to see the bashing of Sarah Palin that goes on. Sarah Palin’s main crime appears to be agreeing to help out the nation by running for Vice-President and not being “qualified.”
The criticism of Sarah Palin seems to have several roots. The most popular though is that people have Presidential Candidates already picked out and Sarah Palin is not the one they want. They figure they can build up the candidate they want by tearing down Sarah Palin and what she’s meant to the conservative movement, to grassroots folks across this country.
Worst yet, people seem to be wishing her ill. To some folks, it seems like other than a huge Obama scandal, there’s nothing they’d welcome more than Sarah Palin being politically destroyed so that their fantasy politics candidate can run for the White House.
Over the next three years, many “candidates” are going to decide not to run in 2012. Other than candidates I really don’t want under any circumstances, I will not be wasting time ”Bashing” anyone. At a times as an analyst, I’ll be honest that I don’t think someone’s running or their chances would be poor, but really do we want to kneecap anyone? And do you really think, kneecapping Sarah Palin will help Jon Huntsman or whoever the heck you want to be President?
Is there any candidate I wouldn’t vote for in a General election in 2012 among those mentioned? I could vote easily for Palin, Huckabee, Sanford, or Jindal. I could vote for Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, or John Thune. With great reservations, I could cast a vote for Mitt Romney.
This is not about some fan club. This is about our country’s future and we are very precariously balanced. Right now, I’m not cheering for any of these Republicans to fail.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
i think its more a direction of the party thing. the image of sarah is a know nothing, shoot from the hip, hillbilly, who was liked by those that want religion to dominate politics. fair or not. similar to your boy mike huckabee. those who don’t want the party to go in that direction DO want palin / huckabee. nothing wrong with that.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Sarah is a first-rate person and my favorite woman for the presidency, although there happen to be 3 men I prefer for that job. Liberals are threatened by her because she’s religious, pro-life, conservative, and attractive. This kind of woman actually threatens the left-wing coalition by having intrinsic appeal to young women who should, in the eyes of liberals, become feminists. If she was a lesbian, or witch, or a Democrat, they would have no problem with her.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Or maybe they just think that she’s not qualified for the job and never will be!
Ever thought about that simple explanation?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
#3, please educate us on the ‘proper resume’ of a presidential candidate? You are a canadian, and presidential politics is different from your system. Obama (a year as senator before he started to run) would never happen in Canada’s system. Even Trudeau had a successful political career. You are heath, your lack of knowledge of American politics shows, as you would understand that usually the candidate with the thinner resume wins the national campain.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Campaign*
November 28th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
my comments on the last posts seem to dissapeared. so her they are for Kris
-you said you only date blondes. how does that not make you the sexist you claim so many commenters are?
- today’s doonesbury comic is hilarious. can you run it as the Front page Funnies, or whatever we are calling that.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
November 28th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
#6:
Yeah, Palin bashing is hilarious.
You know there is a real difference between what attracts you to a person for dating and whether you discriminate.
Because Kris doesn’t date brunettes, doesn’t mean he would discriminate against Brunettes in hiring for jobs. (Exhibit A: Sarah Palin is no blonde.) There’s nothing sexist about being attracted to different types of ladies. If there is, then all men are sexist.
What is sexist is making judgments about someone’s intellect, competence, or fitness based on gender. That’s what’s being alleged at various points. Is logical consistency too much to request?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
saying you only date girls with a certain physical characteristic is probably more sexist than saying that sarah palin didn’t answer questions well in an interview and it is troubling. and the comic is funny because it points to something that is very disturbing to me that bush and palin share: they like to see the world in black and white, good and bad, and that is why we are in iraq five years later. you can be a conservative and still disapprove of republican candidates.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Yes, you can be a conservative and disapprove of Republican candidates…You can also be an elitist.
I actually think we’re in Iraq because we didn’t send enough troops, not because George W. Bush wasn’t a post-modernist.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Just because I like blondes does not make me sexist, how ia that an argument? Maybe Adam only dates women who are tall. One cannot control their physical attractions. If I start to call Martha a bitch (I would never do), or start saying that she is a shirt on a keyboard, then call me sexist.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Skirt*
November 28th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
BTW, Adam is correct, ironically enough, all the women working for me are brunettes. Btw I also like short women, I do not like women under 100 lbs, or women who smoke pot. I am full of sexism!!!
November 28th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Good column Adam.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Wow, what did I do to deserve that?!
November 28th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Adam Graham, I’ve got you loud and clear. You can vote for anyone under the sun, but somehow voting for Romney would be akin to getting a root canal with no anesthetic.
And you expect me to believe his religion has nothing to do with it? Right.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Adam Graham, try this for starters:
“That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. ALl those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”
Gee, I wonder why some people think Palin is unqualified?
I don’t wish Sarah Palin ill, and I don’t think anyone really does. (She is the one who opened the door to ridicule almost every day of the campaign.) I just don’t want her in the White House unless she purchased a ticket. I don’t think what we need right now is a “one of us” candidate, but someone who can do the job. Palin can’t, and she seems to be hell-bent on proving it over and over.
This is not a careful or humble woman. Amazingly, she didn’t blink, and right now she wants to plow right through the door. She must know she’s no where near POTUS material.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Kristofer, too much info.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Martha, he may of course have other reasons to not do it. People are of course entitled not to like Romney owing to dislike of him as a politician. In any case, it’s hardly appropriate to jab before knowing the whole situation.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:08 am
its funny how liberals in the 1960s wanted to end segregation and conservatives wanted to keep it. These labels are tired and old and do not mean what they once were. McCain tried using it and look what happened.
You got Rush Limbaugh, did you hear lately his is blamming what happened in India on Obama. Next Limbaugh will be blamming him for World Hunger and Peace
As for Palin,hummmmmmmmmmmmmm I guess people on McCains staff and the high ranked conservative repu that bashed on Palin or either closet liberals or not Repubs at all, Maybe they have mask on and will take them off soon.
Come on………..you think this is going to help the party for 2012……….having Limbaugh the face of the party, Palins bashing came from liberals which by the way most do even know how to define what that is because if you did on social issues Bush is and was but on economic issues………………HMMMMMMMM I would not go there
November 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Martha, when has Adam ever said anything negative towards lds members? Saying Adam is bigoted towards the lds Christian sect is crazy. You need to stay off those blogs that attack Mormons, 95% of us do not care what Chritian denomination mitt belongs to.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Sure, I don’t know for sure that Adam Graham has a problem with Romney because of Mormonism, but when the guy says he’ll vote for EVERY other person possible, and fails to at least acknowledge that Romney is an excellent candidate, I have to wonder why. Adam is a huge Huck fan, and Palin, too. Certainly, there are many folks in his category who view religion as a primary concern. We know it’s true, it happened, and the bit about Romney being a faker is cover for anti-Mormonism. How can someone support Huckabee if that is the real concern? He’s the biggest faker out there!
November 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am
martha,
huckabee used anti mormonism to get ahead, and adam suppors huckabee. but i think you are wrong here. adam says he would glady vote for jon huntsman, a mormon. unless adam wasn’t aware of that fact.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Kris is not sexist for only dating blondes.
But it does make it even more incredible that he believes others are sexist just because they don’t think Sarah is the best candidate out of what 150,000,000 eligable candidates for President.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:53 am
D to the C. Okay, fair enough. But, I do kind of wonder why he threw Huntsman in there, because just the other day he said he didn’t know anything about him. Suddenly, Huntsman makes the list?
Adam G, what are your “great reservations” about Romney that would make it sooo hard to support him, when you are willing to support a candidate over him that you don’t even know anything about? Which positions do you disagree with Romney on? What area do you believe he is lacking in?
I think we need an honest explanation here.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Adam G, what are your “great reservations” about Romney that would make it sooo hard to support him, when you are willing to support a candidate over him that you don’t even know anything about
I have been wondering that too. Especially since he vehemently backed a guy for president who’s only claim to fame was he donated enough money to be Cook County Chair of the Illinois Republican party.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Kristofer, I don’t go to those blogs, they are all nuts. I went there a couple times in the primary and it was more than enough. But denying the shabby way Romney and Mormons were treated in the primary isn’t going to help the GOP move forward. To me, being bigoted against Mormons is exactly the same thing as being an anti-semite or a racist. We wouldn’t tolerate those kind of folks in our party, why do we tolerate bigots? Especially when Mormons are great conservative voters.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:11 am
26, like many Americans, I feel guilt over the genocide that occurred against Mormons in Mo and Illinois, and some of the comments made in 2008 were reprehensible, but romney did not go through the same pain as Hillary, obama or Palin in 2008.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
I’m fine with Sarah Palin as governor of Alaska, senator from Alaska, even representative of a certain segment of the republican party. As republican presidential candidate, absolutely not. I will try to say it without being mean. But, I don’t think Palin’s candidacy would be helpful to the republican party in the least. I think it would be hard for a lot of Americans to take the republican party seriously if we ran her as a candidate (and not because of Hollywood; people are capable of making up their own minds). That she was considered unqualified was definitely a problem when she was VP candidate; it would be much more of one with her at the top of the ticket. Thus,I definitely believe that it is both in my interest and the party’s interest to prevent that from happening. I think there is among some a de facto double standard when it comes to Sarah Palin. If a liberal had performed the way she had, that person would be considered a joke by republicans. I’m all for agreeing with someone’s ideology but I think we have to have a standard apart from that that our candidates should live up to. If that is elistist, good; we should discriminate among quality of candidates.
Btw, the liberals I know would love to see Palin run, so I don’t agree with your argument on that point. Also, I do not strongly support any candidate; I just don’t want Palin.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I could never support Huckabee and I couldn’t support Palin until she showed she was up to the task. Unfortunately, all she done since she landed on stage was make people think she was unprepared, foolish, and naive. I think she would be a disaster in 2012 and so I’ll be actively trying to prevent that from happening. As for Adam “the Huckahack” Graham, well I don’t think I need to say anything. What is with people being unable to be objective? Hint…hint…Sirs Lorelli and Graham?
November 29th, 2008 at 1:51 am
And I’m in the tank for Romney, but I can still say I like Pawlenty, Palin, Gingrich, Sanford, and Jindal. Just not Huckabee. I think Gingrich has too much baggage, Palin has image and preparedness problems, Jindal is too young, and the other too would get crowded out. I also think Sanford and Pawlenty wouldn’t be dynamic enough to beat Obama.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Example of Palin foolishness: This is how you pardon a turkey.
http://politicalderby.com/2008/11/27/photo-of-the-day-whats-the-caption-55/#comments
November 29th, 2008 at 2:59 am
#24:
I’ve read up on Huntsman, and while I don’t like some of his environmental views, he’s done a good job in Utah.
As for the LDS church, I live in Idaho. We have an LDS Senator in Mike Crapo and I voted for him in 2004 and I’ll vote him in 2010. I voted for an LDS State Representative Candidate in my district the past two elections. I think the attempt that anyone who doesn’t support Romney is anti-Mormon is really insulting.
And are you really demanding that I post an anti-Romney dissertation on this site? I will graciously decline that invitation at this time.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:56 am
#32. And anti Palin means your not….
November 29th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Well said Adam Graham (in #32.) I do not an expert on Mr. Huntsman, but apart from him being a bit of a Green nut, he seems like a decent Conservative guy. I am certainly not going to promise my support for him in the Primary (I am still not officially in anyone’s camp,) but I for one would gladly support him if he were to somehow be our candidate. I am also not an expert on Utah, but it appears that he has done a great job as Governor. I must say that he is not well know by the American people. My wife for example has never heard of him, but she has certainly heard of all the others who have their picture up on this site.
I was out of town for Thanks Giving week and made no comments until last night, but I have read several of the other comments. On the one hand, I am not happy with all this negativity towards Mrs. Palin. I saw her on TV the other day and I continue to be amazed by her and how she has run her state. It also amazes me that people write strong Pro & Anti comments about her, Mr. Romney and others on posts that have nothing to do with them. I do not know whether the anti-Palin crowd is sexist or not or just what their problem is. In any event I think it is down right foolish to trash her. She might not even run for our nomination anyways (I suppose that is the goal of some of the trashers.)
On the other hand, I also do not think it is wise to trash Mr. Romney whether or not he will be our nominee. He is not my favorite candidate, but I will support him should he actually be our nominee and I also will not rule out supporting him in the primary. Many of us who are either Catholic or Protestant have been accused (unfairly) of being anti-Mormon because we did not support Mr. Romney in the primary. However, there are at least a few people who have actually trashed Mormonism and this is no good. It appeared to me that one Palin supporter during a debate in the last few days which had nothing to do with either Mrs. Palin or Mr. Romney, came in my view (a non-Mormon) at least pretty close to trashing Mormonism. I believe that this person does not hate Mormons or anybody else, but some of his comments came across as rude.
Those of us who respect Mrs. Palin (whether we are officially in her camp or not) do not like it when she is trashed so I respectfully ask Pro-Palinites not to trash others. We can have policy disagreements and we can question the judgment of other candidates, but they are still our fellow party members and our fellow countrymen and we should try to avoid trashing each other especially when the primary season is a long way away. We do not need this non-sense. I do not agree with everything that Mr. Romney stands for, but he is still more Conservative than not and it is foolish to trash him or his religion. We just simply cannot trash any of our party members that might lead us in four years.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:04 am
I’ve talked to a few Democrats lately and they are SCARED to death of a Palin Presidential run in 2012 – they know that she is the candidate that has the best shot at winning and they will do anything they can to block that nomination.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I’ve talked to a few Democrats lately and they are SCARED to death of a Palin Presidential run in 2012 – they know that she is the candidate that has the best shot at winning and they will do anything they can to block that nomination.
Are you a troll?
November 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
#36
No!
…And Alex, I find it rather odd these days when someone so much as says anything even remotely supportive or complimentary of Governor Palin that they are pilloried an denounced here, and basically told to get lost. Can we all agree that each of our potential candidates for 2012 have strong attributes and that depending on the circumstances around 2011 that each has a unique opportunity for leadership and electoral appeal? I have endorsed no candidate at this time and I think that a good case can be made for each one and I enjoy exploring those arguments.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Martha,
Now, you’re going overboard. A lot of people simply don’t trust Mitt Romney, especially the Huckabee crowd. On the other hand, there are a lot of people, including myself, who simply don’t trust Mike Huckabee. Just like there are many who don’t trust Sarah Palin.
There are usually legitimate reasons that people choose to support certain candidates. There are a lot of staunch pro-life voters who question Romney’s late conversion to the cause.
Yes, I am sure that some who don’t like Mitt Romney do so because they don’t like LDS, but to label everyone who doesn’t like Mitt Romney as such is wrong, and doing so makes you no better than the Huckabee crowd who claims that the only reason people don’t like Huckabee is because he’s a Christian pastor.
They are both flawed views.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Just like there are many who don’t trust Sarah Palin.
I generally trust Palin. I just think that she’s dumb.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Well here is the catch on Mitt Romney:
There are plenty of reasons to dislike him, and I doubt Adam dislikes him for religious reasons, BUT….
we are constantly told 45% wont vote for him because he is Mormon. Yet, I have never met anyone who personally will admit to it. So at some point you begin to wonder about those with near irrational dislike (like Adam who will vote for people like Cox), since you can chalk up 45% of it to anti-Mormonism.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
They figure they can build up the candidate they want by tearing down Sarah Palin and what she’s meant to the conservative movement, to grassroots folks across this country. — Adam
Actually, that should read “what she’s meant to the libertarian movement…
Sarah Palin is a libertarian Republican. While it’s great that conservatives support her, and many are enthusiastic about her future prospects, it’s much more correct to apply the “libertarian” label to her and her beliefs. She’s not a typical conservative by any stretch.
And it was libertarians who started the Draft Sarah Palin for VP effort way back in early 2007.
We’d appreciate you acknowledging that fact next time. Thanks!
November 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I generally trust Palin. I just think that she’s dumb. — Alex Knepper
Hey Alex, question for ya? You all conservatives always want us libertarians to support you, and your candidates. How is it that you can never seem to return the favor?
When one of our libertarian Republicans gets thrust into the limelight, as Sarah has, it’s open season on them.
Why is it that we libertarians are always expected to get in line, like good boys and girls, and support whatever GOP Presidential candidate our conservative cousins put up, but let a libertarian have a chance, and all of a sudden our “good friends” the conservatives never seem to rally behind him/her?
And you wonder why we libertarians are so suspicious of you conservatives?
November 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Type in Sarah Palin and the google auto-complete algorithm suggests these endings:
snl
saturday night live
bikini
pictures
prank call
africa
rap
photos
prank
biography
What started as a political hit job against Palin has already left the building. Her reputation as bumbling, naive, and an airhead with a pretty face has become cemented into pop culture. Sorry, but I don’t see what complaining about it does. It’s up to her to change her image around. If she’s half the politician most conservatives claim she is that should be pretty easy… so just be patient, right?
November 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Why conservatives can’t come together and support a smart and qualify candidate, what clearly Sarah Palin is not?.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I haven’t seen much evidence of Palin-the-libertarian. The piecemeal facts that are always presented to back that claim up could just as easily be lifted in one form or another from most of the other prominent republicans.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Concerning Gov Palin, there’s a large difference between being ingnorant and being dumb. Gov Palin is obviously ignorant of what skill set a Pres should possess (she hadn’t ever planned on running, and didn’t try to be more than a good Gov of Alaska). Obviously, many members of Sen McCain’s campaign didn’t like that fact, and tried to make her into something she wasn’t, and the results of those efforts were what we saw. I really think she needs to build a coherent message for her run and learn about issues the Pres will need to handle. Maybe she’s up to that task, maybe not, but I’m keeping an open mind and will wait to see what she presents. Right now, I’d pass.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
# Falz Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Why conservatives can’t come together and support a smart and qualify candidate, what clearly Sarah Palin is not?.
Quite frankly Falz, some of us here are most certainly NOT conservatives. Some of us here are VERY PROUD LIBERTARIANS! For you to come onto a Republican website and naturally assume that all Republicans are “conservatives,” is downright insulting.
I hope my conservative friends will rally behind Sarah. But if they don’t oh well. Cause we libertarian Republicans will do everything we can to secure her the nomination for 2012.
And whether you all conservatives like it or not, our numbers for libertarians are growing, while y’all’s are staying stagnant. We’ve got the more attractive ideology that’s more broad-based for the overall electorate. You might want to smarten up, and let us libertarians, your old friends from way back, take over the wheel for a spin.
And the best way to do that is to nominate libertarian Republican Sarah Palin in 2012.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Adam Graham,
Not a dissertation, just a short list of why you oppose Romney so strongly. It just seems odd to me that you will take just about everyone but the dog catcher, yet the only person you have reservations about is Romney who is obviously very qualified and prepared to be POTUS. (Surely you must be willing to admit that.)
Inquiring minds want to know why.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Jorge Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Type in Sarah Palin and the google auto-complete algorithm suggests these endings:
snl
saturday night live
bikini
pictures
prank call
africa
rap
photos
prank
biography
What started as a political hit job against Palin has already left the building. Her reputation as bumbling, naive, and an airhead with a pretty face has become cemented into pop culture.
Spoken like a true social conservative. You conservatives just don’t get pop culture. Your libertarian buddies do. We revel in pop culture. We’re not the prudish wing of our Rightwing movement. We’re the hip wing.
What you all see as a negative for Sarah, we see as a great positive.
Predictably, you all think that her Van Halen-esque “Hot for Teacher” looks is a net negative. We libertarians see that as an opportunity to get the young male rock ‘n roll vote, 18 – 34. But the minds of conservatives don’t think like that. I understand.
That’s my again, I’m imploring my conservative buddies to STEP ASIDE! Let us libertarians take over the wheel for 2012. Give us a shot for once. You’ve had control of the Party since Goldwater. And the record has been decidedly mixed. Let’s try something different. Let’s try giving the libertarian wing a go at it. Let’s try Sarah Palin for 2012!!
November 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Sarah as libertarian? She’s pro-amnesty, and her mega-tax on oil companies, well is that a libertarian idea? What about all the pork as mayor and gov? What about the 400 mil she kept after the bridge idea was quashed? (She came late to the party on that one.)
What about all the rhetoric on Wall Street greed and her call for more regulation — including controlling CEO pay? What about more money for education? ($12,000 per student is apparently not enough.) Is all that libertarian?
Is walking across the aisle a libertarian notion?
November 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Eric (47) The Republican Party is the Conservative Party, so is fair to assume that every republican is conservative, now no all repubs are fiscal-conservative and no all are social conservative. I’m a fiscal and security conservative not a social conservative. There’s nothing insulting with that.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Eric is a little TOO libertarian for my tastes.
Here is what he wrote on the other thread,
You want to guarantee libertarians will be pissed off at you? Go out of your way to oppose marijuana legalization.
That stance will come back to haunt Romney. If he’s our GOP nominee in 2012, he won’t get any libertarian support. He just about killed it all. Unless he SERIOUSLY gives some sort of explanation to us libertarian Republicans as to why he took this absolutely horrendous stance.
If THIS is the issues you are going to live and die by when deciding which candidate to support, then I don’t know what to tell you. If this is demonstrative of what most libertarians value when they enter the voting booth then there is a reason y’all can’t crack 1 percent in any national election.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
And I don’t know what my block quoting won’t work. The thirs and fourth paragraphs of my last post were Eric’s and the rest were mine.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
And I’ve got news for you Eric. If Palin wants the GOP nomination and she gets asked about it, she isn’t going to favor legalization of pot either. You’re pissing in the wind if you think a Republican presidential nominee is going to have any different stance.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
# Falz Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Eric (47) The Republican Party is the Conservative Party, so is fair to assume that every republican is conservative, now no all repubs are fiscal-conservative and no all are social conservative. I’m a fiscal and security conservative not a social conservative. There’s nothing insulting with that.
Absolutely NOT! The Republican is NOT the “Conservative Party.”
If the GOP was the “Conservative Party,” than why is it that the GOP nominated a libertarian for President in 1964?
It’s time to return back to our Goldwater roots. Time for the libertarian wing to take back control of the GOP. And for our conservative friends to follow our lead.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
# Adam Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
And I’ve got news for you Eric. If Palin wants the GOP nomination and she gets asked about it, she isn’t going to favor legalization of pot either. You’re pissing in the wind if you think a Republican presidential nominee is going to have any different stance.
Oh really Adam? The whisper campaign on Palin supporting legalized pot in 2006 actually helped her to win election. Libertarian Party members, and Independents who would have never dreamed of voting for a Republican before, ended up supporting Sarah.
And Sarah’s not the only one:
Idaho Governor and REPUBLICAN Butch Otter has a very tolerant stance on marijuana legalization.
Gary Johnson, former New Mexico Governor, and REPUBLICAN, is one of the most rabid marijuana legalization advocates in the country.
REPUBLICAN Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is a marijuana legalization advocate and he gets reelected with large margins.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Spoken like a true social conservative. You conservatives just don’t get pop culture. Your libertarian buddies do. We revel in pop culture. We’re not the prudish wing of our Rightwing movement. We’re the hip wing. What you all see as a negative for Sarah, we see as a great positive.
Are you insane?
November 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Sarah Palin’s image in pop culture is one of a buffoonish MILF. I’m hard-pressed to imagine how one can turn that into a positive, although your lame attempt at doing so (“We could get the 18-34 male vote!”) was creative, I must admit.
That’s my again, I’m imploring my conservative buddies to STEP ASIDE! Let us libertarians take over the wheel for 2012. Give us a shot for once. You’ve had control of the Party since Goldwater. And the record has been decidedly mixed. Let’s try something different. Let’s try giving the libertarian wing a go at it. Let’s try Sarah Palin for 2012!!
In case you haven’t noticed, the religious fanatics have an unyielding devotion to Sarah Palin. Stop projecting your own politics onto her. You’re as bad as Kristofer Lorelli.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
My basic problems with Palin:
1. She didn’t prepare herself on the issues. I have to wonder why not. She’s either not that bright or she’s kind of lazy. In the past, she’s been able to get by on looks, and persona. To my mind, it seems rather arrogant to think you can become president without bothering to know what’s going on in the world.
2. Horrible articulation. I don’t see how she’ll be able to overcome this.
3. Ethical red flags. Some large, some small, but they are there. I didn’t like the way she handled Troopergate. For a woman whose claim to fame is taking on corruption, she wasn’t very forthright, and it appears she lied more than once about her and Todd’s involvement. They should have dropped it. They did use the power of her office unethically. Add to that the private email accounts, and allowing Todd to be co-gov. These are all troublesome.
4. Judgement issues. Saying she didn’t blink, plowing through the door, leaving Trig home for others to care for. The clothing, the whole Bristol affair. Something just seems a little off in the way she goes about making decisions. She doesn’t appear to be a very careful person.
Things I like: She is just herself. What you see is what you get. I really do find that appealing. She’s not going to apologize for being who she is. I also admire her ambition, although I don’t agree with where it takes her sometimes. She’d be better off running for pres later when she’s had more time to learn and grow.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
If THIS is the issues you are going to live and die by when deciding which candidate to support, then I don’t know what to tell you. If this is demonstrative of what most libertarians value when they enter the voting booth then there is a reason y’all can’t crack 1 percent in any national election.
Excuse me Adam, but I’m a proud REPUBLICAN! My argument is that it makes it extremely difficult for me, as a libertarian Republican, to convince my Libertarian Party friends to fall behind a GOP candidate when Republicans do idiotic stuff like Romney did in opposing the legalization initiative in Michigan.
And you’re so quick to write off the Libertarian vote, ‘eh? Need I remind you, that we are in the situation we are right now in the State of Georgia, precisely because the Libertarian candidate got 3.4% of the vote?
Better to have Libertarians on your side, or working against us?
November 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I hate to break it to you, but just because some weird shit flies in a few sparsely populated western states doesn’t mean it will work nationally. It won’t. She can’t sustain a pro-pot platfrom if she wants to be the nominee. It is at odds with the views of the Bible-thumpers in the south that she needs. Because she can’t do it without the so-cons. Hawks and economic conservatives see her for the bumbling fool that she is.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Since when has the libertarian hawk wing approved of radical pro-life zealots, anti-federalists who support the Federal Marriage Amendment, people who advocate sales taxes so that a new sports arena can be built, supporters of the Bridge to Nowhere (despite her good record on budgeting, the blatant lie made something excusable a total travesty), and those who thought that the Iraq War was for oil? To say nothing of her anti-business, populist rhetoric in the fall campaign.
Support Mark Sanford or Newt Gingrich or, if you believe him, Mitt Romney, but Sarah Palin? My goodness.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Absolutely, but if it means letting a bunch of potheads join ranks with the GOP just so they can have a national party that embraces their tendancies to toke, and that’s the biggest issue these libertarians care about, then no thanks.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Better to have Libertarians on your side, or working against us?
Or neither. Libertarian Party members are usually obsessed with drugs, the PATRIOT Act, and the Impending Totalitarian Police State Under the Fascist George Bush. The Libertarian Party is an embarrassment to pro-liberty political philosophy.
Maybe the Libertarians should stop being so dogmatic and get a little more sympathetic toward potential victims of Islamic terrorism than toward users of recreational drugs.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Adam, all we’re asking is for our conservative friends to meet us half way. Is that too much to ask for?
My gosh, we libertarians realize we’re not going to get total legalization of marijuana over night. But do you all have to go out of your way, to oppose one of our very tepid and careful, medical marijuana initiatives as Romney just did in Michigan, and to dontate friggin’ $300,000 to the effort?
You’re talking to a Mitt Romney supporter here. I like Romney. I supported him greatly on my Libertarian Republican blog late in the primaries. Go ahead, ask Jason Bonham. He knows.
Hell, I still support Mitt! If he’s our nominee I’ll work my ass off for him.
But by him giving that $300,000 donation to the Anti-Marijuana forces up in Michigan, I feel like he’s stabbed me in the back. Moreoever, he’s made it that much more harder for me to sell him and the Republican Party to my Libertarian Party friends. And you think that’s a positive?
Sheesh!
November 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Mary Ruwart, who came in 2nd place to Bob Barr for the Libertarian nomination in 2008, said in a C-SPAN interview after she lost that she couldn’t possibly support someone like Barr for the presidency because he opposed the legalization of hard drugs.
Do these people not realize that a political party is not the proper venue for a philosophical movement? A political party has to be about a coalition of interests designed to obtain public power and influence the national climate. It can’t be a vehicle for dogmatism.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
# Alex Knepper Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Better to have Libertarians on your side, or working against us?
Or neither. Libertarian Party members are usually obsessed with drugs, the PATRIOT Act, and the Impending Totalitarian Police State Under the Fascist George Bush. The Libertarian Party is an embarrassment to pro-liberty political philosophy.
Maybe the Libertarians should stop being so dogmatic and get a little more sympathetic toward potential victims of Islamic terrorism than toward users of recreational drugs.
Alex, you are grossly, grossly misinformed about the libertarian movement.
What you’re describing are Leftwing Libertarians. That’s only one flank of the broader libertarian movement. We Rightwing Libertarians are viciously Anti-Islamo-Fascist and 110% in favor of George Bush and the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You obviously need to learn more about libertarians before you go shouting off your mouth. You’re obviously terribly misinformed.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
It is absolutely a positive. Marijuana is a gateway drug. I’ve tried it when I was a kid a few times and I am no worse off for it, but some people have addictive personalities and pot leads to other harder stuff. It’s detrimental to society. It impairs judgment. I’ve seen people get hooked on heroin. It’s not pretty. You know what they always try first? Pot. It’s stupid. I’m glad Romney donated 300k to the MI effort. I wish he would have given more. And my opposition to pot isn’t because Jesus doesn’t like it. I have no interest in so-con nonsense on the subject. I oppose it because nothing good comes of it, and the more of it there is, the worse off a community is.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
# Alex Knepper Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Mary Ruwart, who came in 2nd place to Bob Barr for the Libertarian nomination in 2008, said in a C-SPAN interview after she lost that she couldn’t possibly support someone like Barr for the presidency because he opposed the legalization of hard drugs.
Do these people not realize that a political party is not the proper venue for a philosophical movement? A political party has to be about a coalition of interests designed to obtain public power and influence the national climate. It can’t be a vehicle for dogmatism.
Yeah Alex, and Mary Ruwart is a friggin’ fruitcake.
You did notice that she lost the nomination to Republican-leaners Bob Barr and Wayne Root, right?
Your view of the libertarian movement, and even the Libertarian Party is hopelessly skewed to the leftside. I don’t know how much more I can say this to you… Perhaps if I scream through my computer, maybe it will get through that thick skull of yours…
THERE ARE BOTH LEFTWING AND RIGHTWING LIBERTARIANS!!!
Please do not judge the libertarian movement by only the leftside, like Ruwart, Tom Knapp, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul and the Paultards, Ernie Hancock, Carol Moore, and other assorted Leftwing/Anti-War Libertarians.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Hey thanks there Adam for meeting us libertarians half-ways. That’s the spirit. Run those libertarians off. Call them dumbasses. We “conservatives” don’t need them around anyhow. They’re just a bunch of potheads.
Hey Adam, tell that to Saxby Chambliss whose in a run-off right now and could lose a Senate seat for the GOP PRECISELY because he chose not to reach out to the Libertarian vote.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Talk about delusions of grandeur. If a Republican candidate can’t win without kowtowing to the potlegalization lobby then he doesn’t deserve to win anyway.
Great job refuting the meat and potatoes of my last post, by the way.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
And Saxby is in trouble because mainstream Republicans are annoyed at his vote on the bailout. There is no groundswell of a libertarian army that has any power to deny him another term. The best you can do is a point or two on the fringes.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
So Adam, you’re avoiding the issue: Should the GOP reach out to Libertarians, or should they go out of their way to piss them off?
You are aware, that the same exact scenario with the GA run-off occured in 1992, right?
In that year, Libertarian Jim Hudson got over 3% of the vote, causing Wyche Fowler and Paul Coverdale to go into a run-off. Well, what happened? Coverdale went to visit Hudson, hat in hand, to ask for his endorsement. He stressed areas of agreement between Libertarians and Conservaties, and pledged to Hudson that he would work with the Libertarians if he won the election.
Well, we all know what happened. Hudson held a press conference and endorsed Coverdale. Coverdale went on to win the race.
Fast forward to 2008. Chambliss has not extended that olive branch to the LP. He’s not gone out of his way to ask for the Libertarian Party’s support in the run-off.
He may still win. My suspicion is that Chambliss will prevail. And thank God for that!
But honestly, we could’ve avoided all this heartache and maybe even the run-off itself if the Georgia GOP had just reached out to Libertarians instead of shunned them as you seem to be advocating here on this Forum, cause as we all know, we Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of “potheads.”
November 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#34:
I didn’t promise my support in the primaries, I said I’d support him in the general.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Alex, you are grossly, grossly misinformed about the libertarian movement. What you’re describing are Leftwing Libertarians. That’s only one flank of the broader libertarian movement. We Rightwing Libertarians are viciously Anti-Islamo-Fascist and 110% in favor of George Bush and the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. You obviously need to learn more about libertarians before you go shouting off your mouth. You’re obviously terribly misinformed.
Right-wing libertarians are already in the Republican Party, though, so they’re irrelevant to your argument about reaching out. I doubt that a capitalist hawk would refuse to vote for the Republican Party because it opposes marijuana legalization.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
# Adam Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
And Saxby is in trouble because mainstream Republicans are annoyed at his vote on the bailout. There is no groundswell of a libertarian army that has any power to deny him another term. The best you can do is a point or two on the fringes.
Umm, Adam, hate to point this out to you, YET AGAIN! But the Libertarian Party candidate GOT 3.4% OF THE VOTE!!!
Let me repeat that: 3.4%
That’s hundreds of thousands of votes. Nothing to sneeze at. Certainly not productive to downplay the significance of 3.4% of the Georgia electorate.
Or, would you rather just write off that 3.4%?
November 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
we Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of “potheads.”
That’s not what he said.
You’re the one that mentioned the marijuana nuts. No one’s talking about you. We’re talking about those who won’t vote for the GOP because of drug laws.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
That’s hundreds of thousands of votes. Nothing to sneeze at. Certainly not productive to downplay the significance of 3.4% of the Georgia electorate. Or, would you rather just write off that 3.4%?
I think that most of them will vote for Chambliss. Even if they all stay home, Chambliss still wins.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Good, I hope you’re right. We’ve been doing out part over at Libertarian Republican blog to get our Libertarian Party friends to support Chambliss in the run-off.
Point is though, imagine all the heartache that would’ve been spared if the Georgia GOP had just adopted the attitude of: “Libertarians are much more like us Conservatives, than the Liberals, or even the Moderates… We need to really reach out to them, and be careful not to piss them off… not to call them a bunch of potheads… or denigrate their positions as idiotic like drug legalization…”
Is that too much to ask? Are we Libertarian Republicans asking too much of our longtime Conservative friends to give us some respect, and even meet us halfway on a few of our pet issues?
You all don’t have to endorse Drug Legalization. But could you kindly NOT fund our opposition of one of our initiatives on the Michigan ballot for medical marijuana?
Could you kindly NOT call use extremists when we bring up issues of importance to us, like repealing seat belt laws, ending affirmative action, opposing 55 mph speed limit efforts, and legalizing prostitution and gambling?
We don’t need you all to back us up on those issues, though it would be nice. We’re just asking that you don’t oppose us, and certainly not denigrate us, as “looney tune extremists.”
I’ve got news for you Conservatives. These days, we LIBERTARIANS are virtually the only friends you all have. So, how ’bout stop kicking the sand in our faces? Huh?
November 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m not avoiding anything. If libertarians’ primary concern at the polls is pot legalization then we don’t need their vote.
Um. Sensitive much. YOU were the one that talked about all of your friends not voting GOP because of the single issue. Gee, I always thought there was more to the libertarian philosophy than that. If I am mistaken, then it’s a shame that I was wrong for all this time.
Exactly.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
#57 –
I think the answer is yes.
I’d love to get behind Sarah… and I would, if she HAD ANY INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY WHATSOEVER. It’s not her resume that’s the problem, it’s her total lack of engagement in the world around her. There is *no way* I would vote for her for president.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Right-wing libertarians are already in the Republican Party, though, so they’re irrelevant to your argument about reaching out. I doubt that a capitalist hawk would refuse to vote for the Republican Party because it opposes marijuana legalization. — Alex
And that’s where you are wrong. Oh so wrong. Where did you think Bob Barr’s 525,000 votes came from? The Leftwing Libertarians hated Barr. The Mary Ruwarts and Tom Knapps of the world vowed not to support him. Hell, Knapp even started his own political party called the Boston Tea Party to oppose the Libertarian Party and to punish the LP for nominating the “Republican” and “LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) Bob Barr and worse “that Republican slimeball used car salesman Wayne Root.” The Leftwing Libertarians attacked Barr and Root viciously all last year.
Those 525,000 votes that Barr/Root got came straight out of the GOP column. They came from Rightwing Libertarians who just couldn’t stomach voting for McCain. It would have been far worse had McCain not chosen Palin. McCain would have lost in a landslide, and Barr’s vote total would have been close to 5 to 10 million.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
You always have these huge forecasts for the libertarian vote that never seem to materialize. There was no way, under any circumstances, where Bob Barr was ever going to get 5-10M votes.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Could you kindly NOT call use extremists when we bring up issues of importance to us, like repealing seat belt laws, ending affirmative action, opposing 55 mph speed limit efforts, and legalizing prostitution and gambling?
I totally agree with you on seat belt laws, prostitution, drugs, and the like — but I just don’t freakin’ care about those issues, and neither does anyone with his priorities straight.
Those 525,000 votes that Barr/Root got came straight out of the GOP column. They came from Rightwing Libertarians who just couldn’t stomach voting for McCain. It would have been far worse had McCain not chosen Palin. McCain would have lost in a landslide, and Barr’s vote total would have been close to 5 to 10 million.
Ah, the beauty of faith! That’s a statement so utterly preposterous that I’m not sure whether you’re making a joke or not. You’re as bad as Kristofer Lorelli, maybe worse. Is there any evidence for what you’re saying? McCain’s numbers before Palin were about the same as the were after him. Palin, furthermore, used absolutely no libertarian rhetoric on the campaign trail whatsoever. She was pretty Huckabee-esque, actually, talking about the greed of Wall Street and the glory of Joe Six-Pack.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Martha, you make a lot of sense in almost everything you type. I think you are extremely perceptive. I would like know what Adam Graham has against Mitt Romney also. Let’s get it out on the table Adam, don’t just keep putting him at the bottom of your list. And pleasssseeeeee don’t put all the lies about his flip flopping or his past ’so called’ liberal positions. Those things have been totally debunked on here many times over. Its GARBAGE. Mitt flipped on one issue, abortion, and has readily admitted it, and even on that issue, he governed 100% pro-life! 100%!!!! That’s as good as you can get on the issue. This garbage of not ‘trusting’ Mitt Romney is very upsetting to many of us. If there is anyone deserving of being trusted, its Mitt Romney.
OhioJoe – Welcome back…I missed you. I appreciate your even handedness. However, I do think that you call some things trashing that don’t really fall into that category. When someone like Martha specifically points out reasons they feel Sarah is not currently ready, and admits that she may very well be someday, thats not trashing, not even close. Its just laying out their thoughts on her current positions, and readiness. Sarah does have a long way to go to be ready, but few, if any of us, are saying she’ll never be there.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Rather than telling us to “stop picking on her”, why don’t you give us reasons to give her a pass?
Rather than telling us that we should lay off the criticism and just let her slide – as if refusing to weed out the underqualified is going to make us a stronger party – why don’t you offer some explanation as to why she would be a good nominee?
November 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Illinoisguy,
i could end up supporting Romney in 2012, but these comments are getting out of hand. A lot of Huck supporters can’t stand Romney, and although I’m sure there are some who do so out of religious bigotry, just like there were probably those who opposed Obama for no other reason than the fact that they could not vote for a black man, there are other reasons that people can’t stand him.
Some folks see him as trying to buy the nomination. Some folks still see him as wishywashy on issues like Gun Control. Some folks still hold him in contempt for the 1994 debates. Some folks didn’t like the way he ran his campaign. Some folks just think he’s too slick.
If you want my opinion, it’s that 2008 just left a bitter taste in a lot of people’s mouths, and those wounds are still open.
MatthewK,
The problem is that when the overwhelming majority of negativity towards Palin, at this point, seems to be coming from a specific crowd, then people start to question those people’s motivations in tearing her down. I’m not coming to her defense from some of the things said, but it does look as though most of the Palin bashing is coming from directly from Romneyist circles.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Maybe. But to whatever extent that is true it’s because Romney worked his ass off for (him and) the GOP to do whatever he could this season. Palin just showed up with the same (more attractive) female body parts as Hillary and McCain thought he could use that to exploit the sympathies of the PUMA’s which obviously never existed.
I bash Palin not because of Romney but because she needs to be destroyed (politically of course). For too long the GOP has been the party of “go with the gut” and “let’s act now and think later”. Bush had zero intellectual curiosity. McCain did what he thought would give him media approval and didn’t care about domestic issues one bit. He had no ability to talk about the economy. If the GOP goes with Palin it only brings down the party further. She’s dumb. She doesn’t do her homework. She is a living, breathing, walking gimmick. She needs to be destroyed and she cannot be the face of the GOP.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
even on that issue, he governed 100% pro-life! 100%!!!! That’s as good as you can get on the issue.
Also 100% pro-choice, because the Massachusetts governorship has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m not coming to her defense from some of the things said, but it does look as though most of the Palin bashing is coming from directly from Romneyist circles.
Not me!
November 29th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Adam – 88 – “YOU CAN’T BLINK.”
Aren’t you sick of politicians that you have to cross your fingers for every time they open their mouths to answer questions?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
And why do you think that is Tommy? Its because you have Romney supporters – who are supporting Mitt because we believe is the most experienced, most competent, most qualified pick for 2012 who cannot stand Palin supporters who like her because “she’s new”, “she’s young”, “she’s a woman”.
Its very Ironic that Palin supporters – who were probably the origin of the harshest criticisms of Obama during the Primaries – are following in his footsteps in elevating an underqualified, incompetent, substance-lacking newbie to the nomination.
Really, why should we entrust the future of the party – and very possibly the country – to someone who can’t articulate policy, isn’t able to give a substantial interview, who has no military experience, little – if any – substantial economic experience, and who, while Americans are busy worrying about how they are going to pay their bills and feed their families at the same time – is cracking “pitbull in lipstick” jokes?
The GOP has a choice in 2012 – it can pick someone like Gingrich or Romney, who offers competent, qualified, experienced conservatism, or it can pick Palin, who is basically the Conservative version of Barack Obama – loved by her crazed supporters for no clear reason.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Huckabee obviously believes Sarah got a free pass. If you don’t believe it read Adam G’s postings on the book. So Adam supports Huckabee – Huckabee thinks Sarah didn’t pay her dues, BUT NOW, after the polls show Sarah taking Huck’s support, Adam G suddenly begins coming to the Sarah Palin camp, and while doing so lists Mitt Romney as someone he could support as a last resort, with no explanation of why he doesn’t like him.
I don’t know Tommy. At least those pointing out Sarah’s weaknesses are clearly defining why they don’t believe she is ready to be POTUS. I think we all have an obligation to point those things out to each other. I’ll welcome the day when people will state clearly why they do not support Mitt, and we can have an open disussion about the merits of the same. You know how thoroughly we hashed over all the ’so called’ negatives about Mitt, and 99% of them held no water.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
adam, you are completely wrong on marijuana. it is not a gateway drug. there is a difference between correlation and causation. yes most people who do hard drugs did marijuana first, but not BECAUSE they did marijuana. its just what is most easily around. they also did alcohol and cigarettes first, does that mean they are gateway drugs too? the fact is, alcohol and cigarettes are much worse for our society than pot, but they persist because of their strong lobby influences, and the ideas of the uninformed. we should legalize pot now, let people use it who want to, especially medically, and stop wasting so much time / money / political capital fighting a pointless war against pot. not to mention, making weed illegal puts tax free money in the hands of people we don’t want having a lot of money. and this is coming from someone who doesn’t smoke anything.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Oh yeah, lets have the Gov. start supporting Drug use…thats exactly what we need.
Drug use is detrimential – to the body, and to the country. period. What is going to be the next thing you want to legalize?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Sarah Palin wasn’t ready for primetime and still she’s not ready. Saying ALSO every four second is not a discourse. She fail to bring new ideas, she’s ignorant, she knows nothing outside of Alaska, she can’t speak about national security or the economy or foreign relationships.
This is not bashing, is reality. I like Sarah Palin but she is not and will not be ready in 2012.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“Other than candidates I really don’t want under any circumstances, I will not be wasting time ”Bashing” anyone”
And what about those of us who place Palin into that group of people we don’t want under any circumstances?
Apart from moderates, Palin is the one candidate who I absolutely cannot support.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
88
“I bash Palin not because of Romney but because she needs to be destroyed (politically of course)”… FOR NOW.
“She’s dumb. She doesn’t do her homework. She is a living, breathing, walking gimmick. She needs to be destroyed and she cannot be the face of the GOP.”…FOR NOW
Fixed that for you to end those two sentences.
Look, Ruffini put it best, Palin has a future in the GOP. That doesn’t necessarily mean she should be on our national ticket, in the RNC Chair, or the face of the party, but she does have a future in the party. I’ve said this before, we got our ass kicked so bad this month that we flat out need to be rooting for Schwarzenegger in the Senate, Palin in the governorship, and almost every R in between at every level to win in 2010.
She’s 44, she has time to get her chops up. If she doesn’t, then she won’t win any of the above positions within our party.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
mathew, nice straw man. i never said gov’t should support drug use. ALCOHOL AND CIGARETTES ARE DRUGS! the government does support them. they also support getting everyone on prozac, oxycontin, valium, vicodin, and xanax. All of those are more harmful than pot. i dont think government should support pot, but they are in a war against it, and there are much more harmful , legal drugs out there.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
i’d prefer a president than can name one newspaper they read, or one supreme court decision they disagree with. can anyone defend that?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
You want to ban cigarettes, fine. Alcohol is fine in moderation, and the other things you mentioned have legitimate uses – but we cannot have the government just take a hands off approach to everything and let the country go to hell in a handbasket.
You argue that smoking Pot doesn’t lead to other drugs, and I’d like to see some evidence for that, because I’m not sure I agree with you. I think its pretty easy to see how using some mild, more accepted drug could get people more comfortable with other substances.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Reading the comments here is almost like reading Daily Kos. The hatred for Sarah Palin is just as vicious here as you’d see on any Leftwing website. I gotta wonder if this site hasn’t been infilitrated by a bunch of Obama-loving trolls, scared of Palin, and wanting to destroy her before 2012?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
how many people die from marijuana each year = 0 . how many people die from alcohol and cigarettes = millions and millions.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I thought government was to ‘promote the general welfare’, not allow unlimited freedom to do whatever the heck everybody wants to. Illegal drugs should stay illegal, and cigarettes and alcohol should pay enough taxes to pay for their he health problems. I personally don’t like paying for peoples idiotic choices.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
and yes, people use mild accepted drugs and become comfortable with them, and use harder drugs. the mild drug they use first is called alcohol.
Dondero – as your brother in the libertarian wing of the party, i am dissapointed. read alex’s post. just because you criticize sarah palin, doesn’t mean you are a democratic or hang out on Kos. respond to the substance. why did she take the $400 million in taxpayer money for the bridge? why cant she name a newspaper she reads or a supreme court case she disagrees with?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Okay all you Palin-haters here at Race42008.com. Say we don’t nominate Sarah for 2012.
How is it that you all are going to rev up libertarian-type voters like me to support the GOP ticket?
How you gonna get us excited and enthusiastic to back the ticket?
Ain’t gonna happen with Romney. Sure as hell ain’t gonna happen with Gingrich.
Jindal? Maybe?
I can think of two individuals out there who could excite individuals like me as much as Sarah; Marsha Blackburn or Michelle Bachman.
Running another boring-ass white male just ain’t gonna cut it for 2012.
If not Sarah, Blackburn or Bachman. We need Celebrity. We need Sexy. We need an attractive female for our Presidential candidate.
If 2008 taught us any lesson it’s that boring-ass old white guys don’t make good candidates for Celebrity-obssessed American voters.
Stop talking about nonsensical candidates who have Zero appeal to most Americans. If you’re not going to support Sarah, than you all need to find another Sarah-like candidate to run. And I can think of only two possibilities, either of whom I’d gladly support: Bachman or Blackburn.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“scared of Palin, and wanting to destroy her before 2012?”
Are Republicans not permitted to oppose Palin? Are we all expected to worship at the high alter of Palinism?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“How is it that you all are going to rev up libertarian-type voters like me to support the GOP ticket?”
As opposed to reving up much larger segments of the population who would prefer someone who is actually qualified to be President with a candidate like Romney.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Sorry Charlie, this is War. We are in a fight for the very survival of this Country. We just elected a friggin’ Communist/Fascist President of the United States, and I will do anything I can to defend the one individual capable in my eyes of stopping this abomination of a human being – Barack Hussein Obama. And that individual is Sarah Heath Palin.
You gotta a better idea?
Can you think of someone else out there on the GOP with her star power? Yes Arnold. But we all know he’s ineligible.
You know another GOPer out there with her looks? Yes, Michell Bachman and Marsha Blackburn. But neither one of them at this point has her celebrity. (Bachman is getting there.)
You know another GOPer out there who has the ability to appeal to the growing libertarian base of voters out there besides Sarah? I can think of three: Gary Johnson, Mark Sanford and John Thune. But once again, they’re all white males, and don’t have the “sexiness” of Sarah.
Sarah is the absolute PERFECT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS A REPUBLICAN.
All the others have their strong points. But none combines them all together as Sarah Palin does. And I will do everything in my earthly power in the coming years to ensure that she gets our Party’s nomination, including attacking her enemies within the Party and on the Left with every viciousness that I’m capable of mustering.
Eric Dondero, United States Military Veteran
1981-85 & Defender of Sarah Palin
November 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
# MatthewK Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“How is it that you all are going to rev up libertarian-type voters like me to support the GOP ticket?”
As opposed to reving up much larger segments of the population who would prefer someone who is actually qualified to be President with a candidate like Romney.
Hey, I get it Matthew, you don’t need us libertarian voters. We should just stay separate. Just continue to support Libertarian Party candidates, ‘eh? You don’t want our votes for the GOP? Is that what you’re saying?
November 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
BTW, I’m gonna be laughing my lilly-white ass off in a couple days, at each and every one of you Sarah Palin-bashers here, when Saxby Chambliss wins the election, cause of Sarah Palin’s statewide campaign tour on his behalf.
Yeah, you all don’t need libertarian Republicans. Don’t need that libertarian vote.
I guess that’s why the Chambliss campaign is flying the Nation’s Number One Celebrity Republican in to do 4 campaign appearances all over the State tomorrow.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
# MatthewK Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“scared of Palin, and wanting to destroy her before 2012?”
Are Republicans not permitted to oppose Palin? Are we all expected to worship at the high alter of Palinism?
Yes, as a matter of fact Matthew, worshipping at the alter of Palin would be just great.
We are talking about the single greatest politician of our lifetimes. We are talking of the GREATEST REPUBLICAN OF ALL-TIME. Better than Reagan. Better than Lincoln. Better than Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or even my previous all-time Hero Barry Goldwater.
We should be getting down on our hands and knees and thanking Jesus,
Budha, Allah, whomever, for Sarah Palin.
She is simply the most perfect politician that we could have ever hoped for. She’s the 2nd most beautiful politician in the World as rated by Maxim. She’s perfect on the issues, limited government and a tax-cutter. She’s a libertarian, but has huge appeal to social conservatives. She’s got a fantastic family, and the greatest husband ever. They’re like straight out of central casting.
Yes, I’d say you ought to count your lucky stars that Sarah Palin came around, and has given so much in such a short time to the Republican Party.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Yeah, and people like Eric are exactly what is wrong with the Party – they want to transform the GOP into a DNC-lite that is all about celebrity politics. They care about star power, sex appeal, and all sorts of other things that are of absolutely zero value when it comes to actually being able to do the job of President.
You aren’t going to win against Obama by copying him. If you want to beat Barry O., you are going to have to daw a shap contrast – inexperience with competence, unknowing youth with experienced age, competence with whatever failures we will see from Obama.
Palin, who is Obama’s equal in everything but ideological leanings, is not going to be able to do that.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Sarah has more control over how viable she is as a Presidential candidate than any other Republican power/influence. If she educates herself, and acquaints herself with the different Republican/Independent/Moderate factions, their issues, as well as national issues and studiously and intelligently crafts her PR Image, she will go all the way to the Oval Office.
If she stays status quo – it won’t happen.
Some of us like Palin, but see the shortcomings, and pretending they’re not there or dismissing it as Palin haters or “bashing” means you’re in denial and we all know how that turns out in the end.
I would actually love to see her make it, but am not blind to her present challenges. If you turn a blind eye yourself – you alienate people as overly biased and nonobjective and that kind of candidate selection is the reason that the Democrats will have control for a long time to come.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
[...] evening, I read one of the most sensible posts in the last two months on R42012. The 80+ comments that followed have left me depressed. Not [...]
November 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
MatthewK Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Yeah, and people like Eric are exactly what is wrong with the Party – they want to transform the GOP into a DNC-lite that is all about celebrity politics. They care about star power, sex appeal, and all sorts of other things that are of absolutely zero value when it comes to actually being able to do the job of President.
No, no, no, no, no Matthew. You are almost entirely wrong.
Yes, Sarah is like Obama on the Celebrity scale, but that’s where the similarity ends.
That’s the beauty of her (no pun intended). She’s the Cuda. She’s absolutely gorgeous, and has major sex appeal, and celebrity, but on the issues, she’s the complete polar opposite of B. Hussein Obama.
Palin is a fierce supporter of the War on Islamo-Fascism. She’s a champion Tax-cutter, and free enterprise advocate. And she’s opposed to the Nanny-state telling us how to live our lives.
She’s hardcore Rightwing. But she says it all with the perfect smile.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Shawnie – You can’t say it any better than that…you’re just stating the simple facts….anyone who calls that bashing is way off base. Are you and Martha’s children out of the house yet, so you can run for Congress?
November 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Matthew, I could throw the same out at you.
People like you are destroying our Party by seeking to run the same old boring-ass old white guys with silver hair, who are “right on the issues.”
Newt Gingrich??? You can’t be serious?
What appeal does Gingrich have to a 20s something Net Gen Xer? What does he possible have in common with younger voters?
I absolutely despise Huckabee. But I give him something. The guy plays a mean-ass bass guitar. Huck, the SOB, gets it! He understands that you gotta have a schtick beyond boring-ass white guy policy wonk.
Gingrich and his ilk don’t get it.
Just because you’re right on the issues, doesn’t matter much in our celebrity obsessed culture of 2008. You gotta be a looker too. You got have some Hollywood savvy. You gotta like Rock ‘n Roll. You gotta be cool, and even be able to “shoot some hoops” like Obama.
Sarah meets all those qualifications. She shoots hoops, AND rides a mean snow-machine. She’s got the looks, of course. She even friggin’ named one of her kids after Van Halen.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Yeah, her positions are great…if supporting something was all a President had to do to accomplish it, Palin would be fine – if only she could win.
But she can’t articulate policy, has little serious experience, etc., etc.
You want to make her a national spokeswoman for the GOP – thats fine, she’d be great at it – but PLEASE, leave the governing to the grown-ups.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Eeek, my gosh you’re goddamned offensive in your remarks Matthew. Calling the Governor of the largest State of the United States “not a grown-up” is downright insulting.
I guess cause she doesn’t have an Ivy League degree ‘eh, she’s just not good enough for you.
Or is it her “less-than-proper” accent of hers?
Maybe cause she comes from a small-town?
Or, is it an anti-Alaska bias you have? Just a bunch of hicks up there in the Valley, huh? You might give her a pass if she came from the eastside of Anchorage, but she’s from Wasilla, huh? Just not cosmopolitan enough for ya?
United States Presidency… Only pig-headed elitists need apply. I gotcha there Matthew. I’ve got your number. Read you loud and clear.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Eric, calm down, you’ll have to admit she is not ready at this time to be POTUS. She has great political skills, but she has a lot of growing up to do before she can compete with those who have spent a life time in preparation. We like her Eric, but lets give her time. Meanwhile, she’ll be a great spokesperson and campaigner for various candidates.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Right, Eric, because we should DEFFINATELY be giving a candidate’s sex appeal top priority. I forgot that the Presidency was like an audition for a swimsuit contest…
November 29th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Umm, yes, as a matter of fact, WE SHOULD BE GIVING OUR CANDIDATES SEX APPEAL A PRIORITY!
Glad you’re finally friggin’ catching on. That’s what Election Year 2008, and our crushing defeat taught us as Republicans: Voters want Celebrity candidates. They want candidates who are flashy, cool, attractive, and hip.
They don’t want tired old boring white guys.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
No, Illinois Guy, I won’t calm down. This is War. We real Americans are at War with the Fascist/Communists who just took over our Country. We’re in a crisis. We can’t afford to play nice, and “calm down.”
We have one individual in our Party, and ONLY one individual who can save us, who can offer a bonafide challenge to B. HUSSEIN Obama. And that’s Sarah Palin.
There’s no “calming down” needed. We all need to become Sarah Palin fanatics and fast. Get on the train. It’s leaving the station.
It’s either Sarah, or we will fail, and the United States will come to end under Hussein.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
If Palin is the only one that can beat Obama, then why didn’t she?
November 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
SO FINE.
LETS PICK THE HOTTEST CANDIDATE WE CAN FIND. WHO GIVES A !@#$@#% IF THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO THE JOB, OR IF THEY ACTUALLY KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT POLICY, OR IF THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF RECORD OR RESUME OR EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD BE ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO AN OK PRESIDENT?
BOOBS? CHECK.
LEGS? CHECK.
OK, LETS GIVE THEM CONTROL OF THE FREE WORLD FOR A DECADE.
JUST PATHETIC.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Good, I’m glad you’re finally seeing the light.
Now, if it’s not Sarah, we’ve got two others to choose from: Marsha Blacburn of Tennessee and Michelle Bachman of Minnesota.
There’s also Fred Thompson’s wife, forget her name?
But we MUST start thinking more along these lines, looks, attractiveness, appeal, celebrity, if we have any hope of winning in 2012.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Taylor, there was a poll done shortly after the election that showed over 90% of voters hardly considered the VP candidate in the Obama vs. McCain election. Virtually everyone voted for the top of the ticket.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
so you really don’t care about a President’s ability to lead the country? You don’t care about how they would govern, or how well they would govern? You don’t care if a candidate has the experience to be President, or the resume to be President, or anything like that?
November 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Eric, you just killed your credibility, in case you didn’t know.
And Fred’s wife? Ha, ha.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
And who are you Martha?
I’ve served 4 years in the United States Military. And you?
I served as Senior Aide to a United States Congressman for 6 years. And you?
I was elected to a term on the Libertarian National Committee, founded the Republican Liberty Caucus, and won local office myself in Tallahassee, Florida in the early 1990s. And you?
I’m regarded as the Top Political Petitioner in the entire Nation, capable of gathering over 500 signatures a day for libertarian/conservative initiatives from California to New Hampshire and Maine. And you?
Since we’re talking credibility, flash me some resume highlights.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Is 112 the blathering of an insane person?
November 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The RLC contests your claim that you alone “founded” the RLC, Eric. But either way, your resume-flashing does nothing to bolster the accuracy of your claims. It’s an appeal-to-authority fallacy.
Calling Sarah Palin the Greatest Republican of All Time — better than Lincoln, Reagan, Goldwater — what on Earth? Stop this nonsense!
November 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
One would think that a senior aide to a US congressman would know that Bob Barr was never going to get 10 million votes this year.
Maybe participation in politics doesn’t make your political antenna and sharper.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
And Alex, you’re right. Sheesh. You can’t blink
November 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
134 – People can get jobs through will power, a lot of the time. Hey — just look Kathryn Jean Lopez.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Taylor, there was a poll done shortly after the election that showed over 90% of voters hardly considered the VP candidate in the Obama vs. McCain election. Virtually everyone voted for the top of the ticket.
HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THIS STATEMENT WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT WITHOUT PALIN, WE WOULD HAVE LOST TEN MILLION VOTES?????
November 29th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“Top Political Petitioner in the entire Nation”
Regarded by whom?
November 29th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
#137 – LOL Great point Alex
November 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Eric is the new JA.
Don’t feed the trolls!
Anyone saying that Sarah might miraculously “change” from a buffoon to a President in 4 years is just being PC.
She is who she is. A nice person who will never ever be a nominee, much less a President.