Shady Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 If she intends to run for the Presidency, she would do well not to run again as Governor in 2010. Gearing up for the Presidency in 2011 would be a hard enough job if she were in the lower 48 states. Ask Pawlenty. If she commutes back and forth, it will not be easy and the risk is that her future aspirations would come into question in the governor's race. If she looks distracted about what comes next, she could lose Alaska.Don't think I'm the only one who is saying this. As soon as the election was over, I wondered if she would run a governor again. She's young and doesn't necessarily have to look at 2012. I think 2016 or 2020 are more of a possibility. In that case, she could run for relection as governor, and then for senator to broaden her national policy and foreign policy horizons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangles Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Palin is an ideological thought-monger and Newt would be a catastrophe if he goes by what he actually says. The Republicans need someone level headed, Palin is an idiot. Once an idiot... It's that simple. The Republicans could use someone level headed like congressman Mark Sanford, a true conservative in the traditional sense. Low taxes, smaller leaner military, less foreign intervention, low or no trade barriers, the real conservative stuff not this warped racial, war mongering religious ideology it seems to have become lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well, the best the Democrats had to offer was Hillary Clinton....and she lost to a rookie. Hillary may have lost the bid for presidency, but she has a role in the current administration. Palin was sent packing back to Alaska. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hillary may have lost the bid for presidency, but she has a role in the current administration. Palin was sent packing back to Alaska. Not quite....Hillary didn't even make it to the general election. And A-Rod jokes are not made about her and Chelsea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Palin is an ideological thought-monger What exactly is a 'thought-monger'? Palin is an idiot. Nonsense. The Republicans could use someone level headed like congressman Mark Sanford, I love Gov. Mark Sanford. He'll be a strong candidate in 2012, along with Mitt Romney. Together, both of them would be great. Hillary may have lost the bid for presidency, but she has a role in the current administration. So does the Harold and Kumar guy. Palin was sent packing back to Alaska. I'm not sure what you mean by 'sent packing', but yes, she went back to her home state where she's currently governor. Edited June 17, 2009 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hillary may have lost the bid for presidency, but she has a role in the current administration. Palin was sent packing back to Alaska. Consider what Obama has done to his closest competitor, who may have won the bid for the nomination had there been a few more states to compete over. Obama gives Hilary the role that has her farthest away from things as possible, a smart thing to do. Giving her the VP job would have been more effective(the current choice is not working out that well even for the most rabid supporters) for the administration, but Obama would rather have a dunce than someone who is his equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Consider what Obama has done to his closest competitor, who may have won the bid for the nomination had there been a few more states to compete over. Obama gives Hilary the role that has her farthest away from things as possible, a smart thing to do. Giving her the VP job would have been more effective(the current choice is not working out that well even for the most rabid supporters) for the administration, but Obama would rather have a dunce than someone who is his equal. Hillary = wicked - and people assume that wicked is smart ----now take this into account and I repeat myself - send an emissary to a troubled region ----take the choice of who will be respected and who will get results on a personal and polical level -----------Hillary Clinton - who could not even manage a husband - Or Palin - who does manage a family - and who is honest? I would put my money on Palin -----If I was a tin pot dictator and had a choice of negotiating with Hillary or Sarah......I would rather spend time with a good woman rather than an ambtious old witch - Palin is the new order - simple and honesty.....those like Clinton - complex and dis-honest are yesterdays news ---------------the world is changing and male leaders would rather deal with a woman than a thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 When I first heard Sarah Palin speak I imagine my reaction was similar to the first time a republican heard Obama speak. Oh crap! She has definitely retained that folksy charm and rural wisdom she seems to eminate. As the last election showed however, you need to have some other skills to qualify for the POTUS. If she can study up and get some more worldly understanding of various issues that go beyond Alaska and in fact beyond American borders, and develop sound conservative policy based on that, she will be a force to be reckoned with. However, if she continues to gain the media spotlight for wars with Letterman as opposed to sensible conservative policy changes, then her odds considerably decrease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 She's young and doesn't necessarily have to look at 2012. I think 2016 or 2020 are more of a possibility. In that case, she could run for relection as governor, and then for senator to broaden her national policy and foreign policy horizons. I suppose she would have to convince Alaskans she is in it for the full term then. If it appears that she is running for President one year after being re-elected Governor, it could ostensibly cause grumbling in her home state, especially if she is spending all her time in the lower 48. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) dobbin might not be aware, she was in New York for an autism fundraiser. She's not running for anything yet, but if Alaskans are anywhere near as understanding as Illinois voters with Obama's antics, she has nothing to worry about. Oh, and stevoh, she already has one thing up on Obama, she can deliver a convincing speech without a teleprompter. Edited June 17, 2009 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 dobbin might not be aware, she was in New York for an autism fundraiser. She's not running for anything yet, but if Alaskans are anywhere near as understanding as Illinois voters with Obama's antics, she has nothing to worry about.Oh, and stevoh, she already has one thing up on Obama, she can deliver a convincing speech without a teleprompter. She needs to get a few more things up than that. (no pun intented) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I like her face - that's good enough for me - and I am never wrong about the visual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) The thing is, for republicans, the issues are never really that complicated. Get the government out of the way. Have a strong and effective military for protection of American soil, American interests and those of other peaceful democracies. Protect people's basic right to life & liberty without direct harm from others. Edited June 18, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I like the fact that the question is not about being a good governor nor about being an honest politician nor about leadership nor justice ----- is Palin better at what she does? yes, but Hitler got much better at what Sarah Palin does - a couple years before his death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I like the fact that the question is not about being a good governor nor about being an honest politician nor about leadership nor justice ----- is Palin better at what she does? yes, but Hitler got much better at what Sarah Palin does - a couple years before his death oooooh that's brutal --- I saw a book of photos of uncle Adolf the dummie.....it was a series of pictures of him posing like Hamlet...He took acting lessons - He did not get better - he just became a better actor. Please - don't use the Hitler analogy - nor mention death - ONE question - or actually two ---how are the men who are in charge of Obama...(his handlers) and who is in charge of Palin? ( her handlers) - - - - - - as for Hitler - He was a god damned actor - as was Bush - as is Obama - as is ---- well Palin might just be to stupid to be an actor - If you audition for a commerical - and you have a hint or glint of honesty - you do not get hired - they want the best liar - and the best liar is usually the one who un-questionably takes instructions...and for the most part - the most stupid - worry about Obama being a Hitler first - anything can happen with him ----to early to tell what the hell he and his "controling committee" are about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 oooooh that's brutal --- I saw a book of photos of uncle Adolf the dummie.....it was a series of pictures of him posing like Hamlet...He took acting lessons - He did not get better - he just became a better actor. Please - don't use the Hitler analogy - nor mention death - ONE question - or actually two ---how are the men who are in charge of Obama...(his handlers) and who is in charge of Palin? ( her handlers) - - - - - - as for Hitler - He was a god damned actor - as was Bush - as is Obama - as is ---- well Palin might just be to stupid to be an actor - If you audition for a commerical - and you have a hint or glint of honesty - you do not get hired - they want the best liar - and the best liar is usually the one who un-questionably takes instructions...and for the most part - the most stupid - worry about Obama being a Hitler first - anything can happen with him ----to early to tell what the hell he and his "controling committee" are about. can you rephrase your question? There doesn't seem to be any particular cogent expression of concern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 can you rephrase your question? There doesn't seem to be any particular cogent expression of concern Okay - who are the actual persons grooming Palin? My concern would be - are they good people or are they bad people - and what are we to expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Okay - who are the actual persons grooming Palin? My concern would be - are they good people or are they bad people - and what are we to expect? well, one of her main advisors is her husband--- a man who advocated Alaskan secession from the union - nuff sed??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 When I first heard Sarah Palin speak I imagine my reaction was similar to the first time a republican heard Obama speak.Oh crap! She has definitely retained that folksy charm and rural wisdom she seems to eminate. As the last election showed however, you need to have some other skills to qualify for the POTUS. What other skills would you consider important to qualify her? Does Hillary Clinton have any of those skills you admire and consider valuable? I think Oleg is right about Hillary though - she is complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 well, one of her main advisors is her husband--- a man who advocated Alaskan secession from the union - nuff sed??? Not really. Americans often do such things as advocate secession from the Union. You know if America becomes more socialist than it is already there may be more advocates. Our Governor-General at one point in her life advocated Quebec separation. Should she be Governor-General? Her boyfriend was advising her at the time, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Palin is an ideological thought-monger and Newt would be a catastrophe if he goes by what he actually says. Interesting that you combined the two in the same sentence, because Sarah Palin's head is an empty vessel, just like George Dubya, just waiting to be programmed, and Newt has a snowball's chance in hell of being the centerpiece of a GOP ticket, but could very well play Dick Cheney to her GW Bush. Case in point: Palin's 2012 stump speeches include a number of verbatim quotes from Newt It appears that much of Palin's text was inspired by an article that Gingrich and Craig Shirley published in 2005 in the Manchester Union Leader, titled "Republicans Need to Relearn Lessons of the Reagan Revolution." As dissected by the Huffington Post's Geoffrey Dunn, the similarities between the Gingrich/Shirley piece and Palin's remarks indicate that she relied heavily on the article when preparing her own remarks. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/08/sa...-newt-gingrich/ But Gingrich is acting magnanimous: “I’m thrilled if Sarah Palin used a Newt Gingrich idea from an op-ed, or speech, or column or whatever,” Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told POLITICO. “[Gingrich’s] response to people repeating his ideas has always been good.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/...0Iu49jeet&C Likely Newt is planning ahead, and has already realized that his high negatives among Republicans that kept him on the sidelines of the last campaign will lead him to choose the right candidate to play puppetmaster to this time around. The Republicans need someone level headed, Palin is an idiot. Once an idiot... It's that simple. It's more likely that America needs a legitimate third party, since Democrats take their money from the same corporate lobbyists as the Republicans, and this is why President Obama's response to the financial meltdown has been to try to re-inflate the bubble, rather than taking on real banking reforms; and leave the U.S. with some watered down compulsory health insurance system, rather than a real national healthcare plan that other developed nations have and the majority of Americans want; and no exit strategy from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo, for that matter! Democrat or Republican seems to be a big deal stateside, but the rest of the world notices that there are very few actual changes between Democratic and Republican administrations. Maybe now that the economy is melting down, millions of unemployed notice that even their crappy HMO coverage is gone, and their jobs were shipped off to China because of free trade dogma -- maybe now will be the time for a real third party to address to deal with some of the issues that the majority want, but keep getting shot down by corporate money....and it all starts with real campaign finance reform, and an end to the dogma that corporations are persons and should be guaranteed full individual rights (just like fetuses) http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 ....Democrat or Republican seems to be a big deal stateside, but the rest of the world notices that there are very few actual changes between Democratic and Republican administrations. Maybe now that the economy is melting down, millions of unemployed notice that even their crappy HMO coverage is gone, and their jobs were shipped off to China because of free trade dogma -- maybe now will be the time for a real third party to address to deal with some of the issues that the majority want, but keep getting shot down by corporate money....and it all starts with real campaign finance reform, and an end to the dogma that corporations are persons and should be guaranteed full individual rights (just like fetuses) That's right...it is a big deal "stateside"....any talk of a third party would only look like the half-ass multiple party solution we see in Canada. No corporate money there...LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Palin hunts and bags a deer - Obama hunts and bags a house fly - you be the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 That's right...it is a big deal "stateside"....any talk of a third party would only look like the half-ass multiple party solution we see in Canada. No corporate money there...LOL! We'll see what happens! Ross Perot almost pulled it off back in 92, at a time when there was also great dissatisfaction with the two part duopoly, and if a sane billionaire with deep pockets comes along this time with a sincere desire to create a legitimate third party, it could bring back real democracy to American politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 We'll see what happens! Ross Perot almost pulled it off back in 92, at a time when there was also great dissatisfaction with the two part duopoly, and if a sane billionaire with deep pockets comes along this time with a sincere desire to create a legitimate third party, it could bring back real democracy to American politics. It could also bring out the medical assassins.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.