- Aug 7, 2003
- 17,038
- 2,806
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Palin emerges with more clout"
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Palin smears? I'll sit back and let the GOP handle that one. My favorite is this in regards to 2012...
"We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her."
"We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her."
Upvote
0
JustMeSee
Contributor
- Feb 9, 2008
- 7,703
- 297
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Erm. Whatever. I don't really feel led to feel much about her at this point. She is currently not a politician, and doesn't impact my vote one way or the other. I do hope that the Republicans are not foolish enough to nominate her for the presidency in 2012. There are many better candidates, and she would most likely not come close to winning.
Upvote
0
- Aug 7, 2003
- 17,038
- 2,806
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Well, that may not necessarily be true. It depends in large part whether Obama can work with the R's and turn the country around. If not, then Palin stands a better chance. What bugs me though is the fact that people are so presumptuous. I think Palin is way more popular then her detractors want to admit. They keep hoping that if they demonize her enough, she'll lose standing. But that's not happening. I saw her on Fox News last night and she was a great. She was very insightful and polite to Ferraro. Frankly, Pelosi deserves a lot more dirt than she gets in the media. She may be powerful, but she's not really that bright.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
It's hard to tell what impact the Palin/tea party effect really had -- I'd say it hurt the GOP more than it helped, actually.
Did the Palin/Tea Party support actually win any races where a moderate GOP "Rino" would've lost? I can't think of any cases.
OTOH, look at Angle in Nevada and O'Donnell in Delaware -- a moderate Republican might've taken Delaware, and could've easily taken Nevada (Reid's not all that popular down there, from what I've heard) But given the choice between Democrats and the Tea Party, Americans chose the lesser of two evils.
Did the Palin/Tea Party support actually win any races where a moderate GOP "Rino" would've lost? I can't think of any cases.
OTOH, look at Angle in Nevada and O'Donnell in Delaware -- a moderate Republican might've taken Delaware, and could've easily taken Nevada (Reid's not all that popular down there, from what I've heard) But given the choice between Democrats and the Tea Party, Americans chose the lesser of two evils.
Upvote
0
Palin is popular in the same way Paris Hilton is popular - rich, pretty cheerleaders. Neither have any business dealing with real issues. I'm sure Palin is a very nice person - she, however, is not experienced or knowledgeable enough to handle the position of the most powerful person on earth.
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 42,269
- 20,162
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't think it was the Tea Party per se, but those candidates in particular that the TP chose to promote. They, Whitman and Paladino were not good choices. And don't forget Joe Miller vs Murkowski, the write-in RINO (by RINO, I mean moderate Republican).
Upvote
0
I think the thing I find most interesting is that at the moment, the most vocal detractors seem to be the GOP establishment (whereas Palin is aligning herself more with the Tea Party movement).
To be fair though I think it's for two reasons. 1. is that there really are stats out there showing that while she might be capable of winning a primary, she'd have no hope in the general and 2. is that people like Carl Rove will be representing someone who will be running AGAINST her in the primaries so they are gearing up now.
Upvote
0
- Aug 7, 2003
- 17,038
- 2,806
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
O'Donnell's republican counterpart in Delaware would have lost, too. Some seats were not to be had by republicans period. And yet there were a lot of traditionally Dem seats that fell to the GOP. If you look at the candidates that Palin actually campaigned for, they did better than those supposed conservative one's that she didn't.
Contrary to what you might think, Reid is actually more popular than you think. I watched a Frank Luntz segment when he talked to them. And it was widely divergent. What shocked me was that the local head of the Republican Black Caucus openly admited to voting for Reid. She's not crazy about him, but he brings home the bacon. He has a lot of power and influence and Nevadan's hated to lose that.
It's the same way with my area many years ago. I'm in the 5th Dist. of WA. We had the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley for years. I even voted for him just to keep in power. But one day the voters woke up and decided that all these earmarks are part of the problem. And so we voted him out. Nevada, CA and MA aren't there yet.
I didn't know that Paris Hilton has actually had a regular job......ever. And to my knowledge, she's never been a govenor. Even Obama had less experience than Palin, but that doesn't seem to bother libs.
You're probably right about Rove. He would rather any republican's lose than his pick. He could be a hindrance. He's your typical politico.
About the bolded portion? You're kidding. right?
tulc(if you were, that was pretty funny)
To some, the truth is outrageous.
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Palin: unelectable.
TheTea Party was a rhetorical backlash and their modest number of wins will mean nothing (thankfully).
Sadly it is for the very same reason that progressives like myself get disillusioned: rhetoric plays well, but Washington DC is where "ideals" go to die.
The Tea Party and it's variants are little more than idealogues (largely with poor historical knowledge) but idealogues don't fare well in real politics. They didn't get enough people in the machine to change the machine and in the end the Republicans who have been doing what they do (just as the Democrats) will ignore the populist pleas that are too extreme and jeopardize the money flow.
I heard an NPR interview recently in which they were talking about Harold Ickes going to Clinton in '94 after a similar loss in the mid-terms. Ickes, if I recall correctly, told Clinton it was actually better that the GOP got control of the House rather than the Dems holding a small skin-of-the-teeth hold precisely because now the GOP would have to do something.
These days they are called "the Party of 'No'" for a reason...now that reason has to evaporate. They are in control of the House so they have to do something.
Granted all their rhetoric is garbage played out for the Base and can't be enacted ("repeal obamacare"??? yeah, right, you forget Obama still has the veto pen and the GOP couldn't overcome a filibuster, besides when presented with the individual portions of Obamacare most people actually like the ideas, so there's no way to repeal it even peicemeal. Take that GOP! ...oh, and fixing all the erroneous efforts at recovery? Well they'll have to start dismantling that which their guy, W, started. Again, tripping over your own party lines isn't the best way to show "competence", but the base for them doesn't necessarily value that.)
But they will have to do something. I suspect that something will start with trying to square the circle by balancing the budget without increasing revenues. Too bad that will fail. They'll do what every Republican claims they would never do: "raise taxes". But I'm actually OK with that because unlike some of my conservative friends I learned back in grade school you don't get something for nothing. No free lunch. Gotta pay if you wanna play.
So the GOP has a pyrrhic victory on their hands. They should be happy they got what they did, but then they need to look over at their buddy Newt Gingrich who is just now, after 14 years in the wilderness crawling back out into daylight. The "Contract on America" didn't work out so well for him and his buds. I doubt that this new sweeping conservatism will work out well for the GOP of today any better.
But if they have some ideas, let 'em finally speak up and do something useful instead of just acting as one giant human road-block.
As for Palin? Kingmaker? Yeah, right. She's an "EIPO": Electable in Primary Only. She isn't smart enough, disciplined enough or savvy enough to make it through a true presidential campaign. She'd wind up as a joke.
And I suspect she knows that. After requiring 4 different colleges over 5 years or so just to get a bachelors degree and not even being able to finish out her term as governor of pretty "red" state like AK, it is unlikely she has the errrmmm, "cojones" to make it all the way through a real election where she's the main event not just the sideshow as she was for VP.
Conservatives need to learn that discipline isn't just for other people but they have to show some themselves.
TheTea Party was a rhetorical backlash and their modest number of wins will mean nothing (thankfully).
Sadly it is for the very same reason that progressives like myself get disillusioned: rhetoric plays well, but Washington DC is where "ideals" go to die.
The Tea Party and it's variants are little more than idealogues (largely with poor historical knowledge) but idealogues don't fare well in real politics. They didn't get enough people in the machine to change the machine and in the end the Republicans who have been doing what they do (just as the Democrats) will ignore the populist pleas that are too extreme and jeopardize the money flow.
I heard an NPR interview recently in which they were talking about Harold Ickes going to Clinton in '94 after a similar loss in the mid-terms. Ickes, if I recall correctly, told Clinton it was actually better that the GOP got control of the House rather than the Dems holding a small skin-of-the-teeth hold precisely because now the GOP would have to do something.
These days they are called "the Party of 'No'" for a reason...now that reason has to evaporate. They are in control of the House so they have to do something.
Granted all their rhetoric is garbage played out for the Base and can't be enacted ("repeal obamacare"??? yeah, right, you forget Obama still has the veto pen and the GOP couldn't overcome a filibuster, besides when presented with the individual portions of Obamacare most people actually like the ideas, so there's no way to repeal it even peicemeal. Take that GOP!
...oh, and fixing all the erroneous efforts at recovery? Well they'll have to start dismantling that which their guy, W, started. Again, tripping over your own party lines isn't the best way to show "competence", but the base for them doesn't necessarily value that.)But they will have to do something. I suspect that something will start with trying to square the circle by balancing the budget without increasing revenues. Too bad that will fail. They'll do what every Republican claims they would never do: "raise taxes". But I'm actually OK with that because unlike some of my conservative friends I learned back in grade school you don't get something for nothing. No free lunch. Gotta pay if you wanna play.
So the GOP has a pyrrhic victory on their hands. They should be happy they got what they did, but then they need to look over at their buddy Newt Gingrich who is just now, after 14 years in the wilderness crawling back out into daylight. The "Contract on America" didn't work out so well for him and his buds. I doubt that this new sweeping conservatism will work out well for the GOP of today any better.
But if they have some ideas, let 'em finally speak up and do something useful instead of just acting as one giant human road-block.
As for Palin? Kingmaker? Yeah, right. She's an "EIPO": Electable in Primary Only. She isn't smart enough, disciplined enough or savvy enough to make it through a true presidential campaign. She'd wind up as a joke.
And I suspect she knows that. After requiring 4 different colleges over 5 years or so just to get a bachelors degree and not even being able to finish out her term as governor of pretty "red" state like AK, it is unlikely she has the errrmmm, "cojones" to make it all the way through a real election where she's the main event not just the sideshow as she was for VP.
Conservatives need to learn that discipline isn't just for other people but they have to show some themselves.
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Palin is a nice "side-show attraction". That's probably where she'll remain. Which is fine.
I don't think it's so much "experience" that is so important as at least the appearance of competence.
Palin appeared relatively incompetent. Obama actually sounded like he was more than just a few catchphrases. Palin played to a base that was enamoured of ignorance and bluster. Obama played to a base somewhat different.
Obama had both a BS and a Law degree from pretty major universities. His bona fides were solid. Palin took several years and 4 different colleges just to squeak out a communications degree (the degree that often accompanies luminaries in universities who were there to play sports).
I have no idea if Palin is truly a moron or not, but she certainly plays one on TV quite effectively. Whether that is political theater for her chosen base or not is hard to tell.
Rove is extraordinarily dangerous. If he truly is not on the Tea Party side they will learn what unadulterated political will is when bereft of values or morality.
At least Tea Partiers seem to genuinely value what they claim they value, even if it is often predicated on an abysmal lack of historical perspective and is loaded up with piles of Beck-ian weirdness. Rove and his mentor Atwater are/were truly scary individuals on the political scene. I am uncertain what Rove would not do for a win. I am glad he is no longer front and center in the GOP but I fear he is in the shadows again, and I think that's where he does his favorite work.
If Rove were to back someone against any of the Tea Partiers the Tea Partier would go down faster than...well, you get the point. Tea Partiers are often quite earnest and even if I disagree with their strange rhetoric, at least the fact that they believe in something makes them vulnerable to a Rovian attack.
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Obama reached across the aisle pretty quickly. The R's slapped his hand back and quickly established their identity as "The Party of 'No'".
Every time the GOP whined about the Dems using a particular parliamentary trick to get their way it was almost always revealed within a day or two that the GOP had been consistently using that same trick much more than the Dems.
The GOP was not interested in "cooperation", they want their way. Well, now they've got the House. Let's see what they have.
She is popular, indeed. Mysteriously so, but she plays to a vocal base. She plays the usual "anti-intellectual" card that the GOP and conservatives have specialized in for the last 20 years or so.
She just plays it much better than most.
Her own actions do just enough damage.
She was playing to her home audience. Of course she was "great".
Does she read newspapers now (instead of just crib notes penned on her palm)? That'd be a great turn of events!
Upvote
0
JustMeSee
Contributor
- Feb 9, 2008
- 7,703
- 297
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
I am not so sure about that. Mike Castle would most likely have given Coons a fight for his money. The Republicans may have favored O'Donnell, but many of the moderates and Democrats would have gone for Castle over Coons. Of course, this is my unprovable perspective.
I don't want to beat her when she is down, but O'Donnell has some very heavy baggage. She would have had a better chance in a more right leaning state.
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
they can repeal it if they really wanted, all they'd have to do is attach the repeal to every bill that absolutely must pass like the general budget. If Obama veto's it there's no budget -- this would probably appeal to the republicans more than it would appeal to Obama.
I'd be shocked if they actually did, though. The HCR bill is about as big-corporate friendly as possible and the republicans are still the same corporate tools they always were -- I don't see them repealing it but they'll make all kinds of excuses for why they don't.
Similarly-- the Dems could have ended the Iraq war after '06 if they had had the cajones to attach a mandatory exit timetable to any funding bill for the war. Hell, that's why people voted them into office that year, to stop the war. But they were too worried about bush vetoing the whole bill -- war funding included -- and then blaming the democrats for not supporting the troops, or some bullcrap. You can really do a lot with just the house of representatives because all government funding has to pass through there at some point.
...as for the healthcare bill being popular if you just list the provisions... by "provisions" i assume you don't mean the actual text of the bill-- you're talking about some democratic spin about what it's supposed to do--which nobody is going to read other than democratic partisan hacks, mind you-- the actual bill on the other hand is 2000 pages of legalize and the vast majority of congresspeople, let alone the american people, have no idea what's in it, and that won't change if they start repealing parts of it. They didn't know what was in it when they passed it, you think that's going to change when they start repealing?
...
As for Sarah Palin, the media has this bizarre obsession with her. Why would they say "Sarah Palin Emerges with more Clout"? Why not "Dick Armey emerges with more clout" or "Koch Brothers emerge with more clout" or John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Pat Toomey or any of the other extreme conservatives who won this election? Sarah Palin's main accomplishment this election is handing a senate seat to Chris Coons. But she gets 70% of the attention, and most people haven't even heard of the others i listed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
blueapplepaste
the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Palin plays to the base very well. No one is denying that. But her only clout is within her party. If she were to run for POTUS, she would get crushed in a landslide.
She really is the Paris Hilton of politics.
She really is the Paris Hilton of politics.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
