Palin in the White House = imminent apocalypse

It was a crazy, desperate "Female vote get" attempt, I'd think. To counter the "omg black" vote. Apparently getting a good female candidate was either too hard or unimportant.

It was a crazy, desperate "Female vote get" attempt, I'd think. To counter the "omg black" vote. Apparently getting a good female candidate was either too hard or unimportant.

If choosing Palin for VP was actually an attempt at winning over feminists with the idea of "women in power" it was probably a big mistake. I've heard of positions of hers (like her stance on the rape exception) that push away feminist support, so it would probably backfire. In general, though, the idea of supporting Palin OR Hillary more because they're women sounds ridiculous to me; like with the idea of voting Obama because he's black, how is using skin colour or gender as if it's some kind of criteria not racist or sexist? It's like when the Canadian Green Party leader said trying to keep her out of the debates was "an attempt by media officials and party leaders who are all men to keep out a woman"; seeing as how the Greens were kept out when their leader was male, the idea of assuming sexism because it was at the hands of men if anything sounded like what was really sexist to me, and when I was undecided between NDP and Green, remembering quotes like that was one of the things that turned me away from the Greens... well at least this time, given their current leader...

...

Anyway, as for the "pranked" link, it kinda reminded me of Bush's reaction in this. But yeah, it's like the "Katie Couric interview" I'd heard of in that it reinforces the "Palin not fit to be VP" image. I can't help but think that it's not as much about being pro-Palin or even pro-McCain so much as anti-Obama. Some still say they want to vote McCain because "he's not Obama"; well, Baldwin isn't Obama, Barr isn't Obama, and Nader isn't Obama, either. It's not like John McCain and Barack Obama are the only options, and the idea of not voting for the others because "they're not likely to win" sounds to me like reversed cause and effect to me... of course they're not going to win unless more people actually vote for them. And while I don't think the ideology labels I'm going to reference are very meaningful, I'd like to point out that those considered "left-wing" and those considered "right-wing" alike oppose this idea.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

I could post something meaningful here but it would fall on deaf ears. So instead I'll warn everyone to lick all their possessions before Obama takes office. (lol cobert lol)

Oh and:we all know Palin's true identity.

~Tobe

You know, I had a big post lined up concerning Obama's own transgressions concerning the First Amendment (i.e. kicking reporters off his plane, blacklisting TV stations, etc.), the bias of the mainstream media with regards to its overwhelming favor of Obama, the demonization of Palin (and family; still not quite sure how one can top suggesting that Trig isn't Sarah's baby, but they're trying), Joe the Plumber, and the like for daring to question Obama instead of taking him at his word, why I don't give a flip about the world's opinion of America, the incompetence of the staffers who routed the comedian call to Palin without checking first, and so on and so forth...but it got Yuku'd.

So instead, I'll just laugh at your hysteria regarding Palin, and wonder what lovely nickname you'll come up with to top 'Mooselini'.

Alaskan Fascism, AWAY!

EDIT: Just to be a little more elaborate...

Is this some kind of elaborate prank, or are republicans seriously considering voting for the fail parade that is Sarah Palin?

Yes, we are. Were it not for Palin and her rallying of the conservative base, McCain wouldn't have a prayer of beating Obama. Course, you might want to check Joe Biden for the fail parade first...

They do realize that she is making them the laughingstock of the world, even more so than Bush?

If that turns out to be the case, you'll have to remind us why we should care.

They do realize that if by some horrible collapse of america she manages to gain any power whatsoever, it would be like sticking a KICK ME sign on America?

It'd be fabulous if she got into office. Again, this goes back to the above; why should we care about the opinion of the world as to the affairs of our own country? And this is, of course, compared to Obama's 'PLEASE SHOOT ME' sign.

Some republicans who don't understand how strong Obama is like to say that enemies would try to test him.

*snicker*

Some republicans who don't understand how strong Obama is like to say that enemies would try to test him.

*chuckle* Ah, that's a good one.

What if somebody called her to actually trick her into compromising national security or starting an international incident? How can you imagine enemies would not be ecstatic to get a chance at her?

Dude. Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.

How can you imagine enemies would not be ecstatic to get a chance at her?

Because then they wouldn't have this guy:

�

How can voting for her be anything other than an insult to humanity?

A vote against socialism.

I still muse over how much fear and hatred certain parts of America harbour towards ideologies such as socialism and communism.

I still muse over how much fear and hatred certain parts of America harbour towards ideologies such as socialism and communism.

Historical precedent (note: the free market leads the series), incompatibility with the system of government established by our Constitution, and a rather frank distaste for the large exchange of power from the individual to the State that such a move would necessitate.

Socialism: We'll Get It Right THIS Time!TM

Well, socialism works in the uk. I do understand our laws are different though. I can't see why you can't just adopt a couple of things rather than the whole shebang though. For instance, I'm all for you guys having some very basic healthcare system for the poverty-stricken. Denying someone healthcare just because they can't pay medical bills just seems wrong to me. imo heath should be a right and not a privilage. Although I know that would be a bit of a tax money sink and Americans tend to strongly dislike tax whatever the reason is.

I've gotta admit our socialist ideals are probably why we get taxed so much actually =/ But hey I think it's worth it.

And on why you should care what the rest of the world thinks; everything the USA does as a country effects every other country in the world, that's why. Bank crisis anyone?

And on why you should care what the rest of the world thinks; everything the USA does as a country effects every other country in the world, that's why. Bank crisis anyone?

They don't vote. Ergo, why should we care?

Funny that you mention the bank crisis; given Obama's close associations with various figures (Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, etc.) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two of the primary causes of our current banking snafu), you'd think Europeans would consider otherwise.

That, and the Democrat Party's general stance on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past decade or so. Such as Barney "These two entities are not facing any financial crisis" Frank.

kicking reporters off his plane

First time I heard that report, I was told McCain did the exact same thing. It's bad, but both parties are guilty.

socialism socialism socialism blah blah blah

is miles better than giving all the money to the rich so they can get richER. Which is exactly what Bush did, and it sure as hell hasn't helped jack.

Besides, there IS a Socialist Party in the US, and they've gone as far to say that calling Obama Socialist is a load of bull. It's different, yes, but it's pretty far from actual socialism.

And Joe the Plumber can get bent. God, what an ego that man has.

kicking reporters off his plane

First time I heard that report, I was told McCain did the exact same thing. It's bad, but both parties are guilty.

socialism socialism socialism blah blah blah

is miles better than giving all the money to the rich so they can get richER. Which is exactly what Bush did, and it sure as hell hasn't helped jack.

Besides, there IS a Socialist Party in the US, and they've gone as far to say that calling Obama Socialist is a load of bull. It's different, yes, but it's pretty far from actual socialism.

And Joe the Plumber can get bent. God, what an ego that man has.

Who IS this 'Joe the Plumber' I keep hearing about? I haven't really been following all this election campaigning very closely (beyond mainly Obama's campaigning), but from what I know, 'Joe the Plumber' is actually just an artificial construct made by McCain.

Edited to add: Never mind, I just read about it on Wikipedia. Joe's a real dude.

It's not so much the fact that it's disliked - I'll admit that capitilism has stood as the most stable form of economic status - more the apparent fear of it coming into power in the US. It's never likely to happen in the US unless there's either a majority uprising or if the appropriate party is voted into power legitimately, neither of which is likely to happen I'm sure you'll agree.

Snickering and chuckling =/= arguing a point, Ultra. Are you suggesting that Obama reducing the military budgets is more likely to make people attack the US than getting them pissed off at the US? I doubt "they're reducing their military budgets" is more of a core motive for attacks than "they're supporting dictators in some countries and claim to be invading others to protect democracy." It's one thing to believe in doing what you do regardless what others think, and another to say that a few hundred million people in a region bounded by arguably arbitrary lines should be indifferent to what billions of other people outside that region think. You've said before that you felt compelled to vote Ron Paul (who I've heard has since endorsed Chuck Baldwin, someone I haven't seen you mention) because of the government cutbacks he'd make, but he himself insists that people attack us because we're "over there"; have I misinterpreted your views or have they changed? People outside your country can't vote for your candidates (nor can children, BTW, but I doubt you'd say we shouldn't care what they think) but they can affect the US, just like the US can affect other countries.

As for "socialism" while I don't know many of the details, the kinds of things I hear referred to as "socialism" are things like public healthcare and higher taxes on the wealthy; which are pretty moderate socialism, and moderate socialism itself has worked in some European countries...

EDIT: One of the comments in the first paragraph was misworded and unnecessary so I'll scrap it for now. Anyway, you list the "mainstream media" being "biased" in favour of Obama as if it's something "against the first amendment"; well, I don't watch much TV (outside of clips from TV on youtube) or read much newspaper, but by whose standards do you call it "biased?" I don't think it's so much bias as pursuit of ratings; businesspeople tend to go for what is more profitable, that tends to be WHY they're businesspeople in the first place... so if the "mainstream media" is "biased" towards portraying Obama more positively than McCain, wouldn't that be a sign that people might be more inclined to watch a positive portrayal of Obama? In any case, it's not like it goes against the first amendment; if you don't like the mainstream media, you can do what I do (or at least recently anyway, since a few years ago I had a bit of a habit of watching a lot of CBC St. John's myself) and avoid it; it's not like they're forcing you to use it. I much prefer the Internet myself, given its variety of communities-within-communities, how if you want to see a certain perspective portrayed you can find it easily enough, (simple google searches of phrases can give me an idea how common certain thoughts or phrasings of those thoughts are) and it's a shame that there's so much anti-Internet BS out there, like shows that focus on the larger online communities (despite that the smaller ones seem to tend to be different, a similar thing online to offline) and making them out to be some kind of crime magnets... but that's another story. My point is, so long as you have the option, given the Internet, (which we're using right now) to find different perspectives, it's up to you to avoid the mainstream media if you don't like it.

Snickering and chuckling =/= arguing a point, Ultra. Are you suggesting that Obama reducing the military budgets is more likely to make people attack the US than getting them pissed off at the US? I doubt "they're reducing their military budgets" is more of a core motive for attacks than "they're supporting dictators in some countries and claim to be invading others to protect democracy"; when people do what they do, they have their reasons, and these reasons aren't always "because I can."

It's not just about a military budget. It's about cutting back on our military's capacity. Our nuclear weapons (our deterrent) DO have a shelf-life, and they need to be overhauled and replenished with new materials to remain effective. Our military - particularly vehicles in the Air Force and Army - are operating off of a template that's decades-old; the military is currently updating to a more advanced combat template across all branches. There's no point in having a military if it's not going to be an effective one.

It's one thing to believe in doing what you do regardless what others think, and another to say that a few hundred million people in a region bounded by arguably arbitrary lines should be indifferent to what billions of other people outside that region think...People outside our country can't vote for our candidates (nor can children, BTW, but I doubt you'd say we shouldn't care what they think) but they can affect the US, just like the US can affect other countries.

Then let me reiterate my words:

They are not Americans. They do not vote in our elections.

If they want their country's government to interact with our government in a manner more befitting to their tastes, then they can elect politicians who will act in such ways in their own countries. But as an American citizen, I have no qualms saying that concerns regarding my country trump their concerns about America.

You've said before that you felt compelled to vote Ron Paul because of the government cutbacks he'd make, (who I've heard since has endorsed Chuck Baldwin, someone you seem to have yet to mention) but he himself insists that people attack us because we're "over there"; have I misinterpreted your views or have they changed?

I did like Ron Paul's domestic ideas, but I never did like his foreign policy ideas.

And Chuck Baldwin is only a Ross Perot factor as far as I'm concerned; the only viable candidate against Obama at this point is McCain.

As for "socialism" while I don't know many of the details, the kinds of things I hear referred to as "socialism" are things like public healthcare and higher taxes on the wealthy; which are pretty moderate socialism; and moderate socialism has worked in some European countries...

Socialism tends to work in an inverse proportion to how large a country is; the bigger the country, the less it works without the need for an overbearing system of government to control everything (aka, communism).

Think about it; the redistribution of wealth is far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer than it is a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

Besides, the best way to put more money in people's wallets is to leave it there in the first place.

EDIT:

And Joe the Plumber can get bent. God, what an ego that man has.

Shadow Hog. The man asked a simple question when Obama visited his neighborhood. Obama let slip the 'spread the wealth' comment. Cue a buzz about socialism and Obama in the blogosphere.

Now. Do you think that merited a RECORDS INVESTIGATION by a Toledo Police Department records clerk and Ohio state government employees?

No, of course not. Now, care to tell me what that has to do with what I said? Sure, people shouldn't have been investigating him, but the man's gone from a simple plumber in Ohio who was questioning Obama's tax plan (an honest move) to a friggin' celebrity, contemplating both writing a book about the whole thing and running for Congress. Power going to his head much?

And Joe the Plumber can get bent. God, what an ego that man has. Shadow Hog. The man asked a simple question when Obama visited his neighborhood. Obama let slip the 'spread the wealth' comment. Cue a buzz about socialism and Obama in the blogosphere.

Joe The Plumber was such an obvious plant that I'm surprised he doesn't live in a pot of dirt and require watering. Seriously, 'undecided', and then all of a sudden McCain trots him out at the debate and has the guy campaigning with him? The dude is a fern. Bees flock to him for pollen. He breathes in carbon dioxide and expels oxygen. In other words: PLANT.

And my main beef with Sarah Palin is that she's a terrible human being. She's a liar (pretty much her entire resume as mayor and governor, her whole claim as a 'reformer' and 'earmark killer', etc.), a conniver (the Troopergate nonsense, not speaking up when the Wasila police chief CHARGED RAPE VICTIMS for their own RAPE KITS, asking a local libarian how she could ban certain books, etc.) and a thief (the Bridge To Nowhere which she only killed when the feds told her no more money from the lower 48). Her husband belonged to an Alaskan secessionist group (a group that Palin recorded a congratulatory message for THIS YEAR) whose outspokenly anti-American leader, Joe Vogler, was killed while trying to purchase PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES.

She's a cypher, a Rapture-awaiter and a dullard. To put her in the White House would be an act of treason. I don't just dislike her, I hate the !#*%#. I hate her with every fiber of my being. Every part of me that loves this country is revolted at the thought of her being anywhere CLOSE to being in charge of it.

Joe The Plumber was such an obvious plant that I'm surprised he doesn't live in a pot of dirt and require watering. Seriously, 'undecided', and then all of a sudden McCain trots him out at the debate and has the guy campaigning with him? The dude is a fern. Bees flock to him for pollen. He breathes in carbon dioxide and expels oxygen. In other words: PLANT.

Obama came to Joe's neighborhood. He didn't go to Obama.

For what it's worth, the blogosphere heaped a lot of attention on the Obama/Joe encounter, primarily because of the 'spread the wealth' comment. I'm not surprised that McCain would run with it.

She's a cypher, a Rapture-awaiter and a dullard. To put her in the White House would be an act of treason. I don't just dislike her, I hate the !#*%#. I hate her with every fiber of my being. Every part of me that loves this country is revolted at the thought of her being anywhere CLOSE to being in charge of it.

O_o

She's a cypher, a Rapture-awaiter and a dullard. To put her in the White House would be an act of treason. I don't just dislike her, I hate the !#*%#. I hate her with every fiber of my being. Every part of me that loves this country is revolted at the thought of her being anywhere CLOSE to being in charge of it.

O_o

Can you argue it? Can you blame me for being as mad as I am about this? I'm seeing this moron, this walking talking stereotype of all the worst preconceptions people have about Americans, trying to folksy her way into the position of backup Most Powerful Person In America and maybe the entire free world. I'm seeing this and as a proud American it INFURIATES me to see this sub-Quayle ignoramus reaping the rewards of being a lying cheating conniving shrieking slandering thieving hypocrite. Her very presence in this race speaks poorly of my country, because if our standards have sunk SO LOW that we'll stomach her as a leader just because she's not hard to look at, then we're lost as a nation.

John McCain should be ashamed for bringing her into this election. The man I respected in 2000 is now truly dead and buried to me. He's been replaced by this... puppet. This grotesque approximation of a real man.

She's a cypher, a Rapture-awaiter and a dullard. To put her in the White House would be an act of treason. I don't just dislike her, I hate the !#*%#. I hate her with every fiber of my being. Every part of me that loves this country is revolted at the thought of her being anywhere CLOSE to being in charge of it.

O_o

Can you argue it? Can you blame me for being as mad as I am about this? I'm seeing this moron, this walking talking stereotype of all the worst preconceptions people have about Americans, trying to folksy her way into the position of backup Most Powerful Person In America and maybe the entire free world. I'm seeing this and as a proud American it INFURIATES me to see this sub-Quayle ignoramus reaping the rewards of being a lying cheating conniving shrieking slandering thieving hypocrite. Her very presence in this race speaks poorly of my country, because if our standards have sunk SO LOW that we'll stomach her as a leader just because she's not hard to look at, then we're lost as a nation.

John McCain should be ashamed for bringing her into this election. The man I respected in 2000 is now truly dead and buried to me. He's been replaced by this... puppet. This grotesque approximation of a real man.

Half of me just wants to stare.

The other half is wondering how deeply developed this case of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) truly is.

Her very presence in this race speaks poorly of my country, because if our standards have sunk SO LOW that we'll stomach her as a leader just because she's not hard to look at, then we're lost as a nation.

Emphasis mine.

That you can say this with a straight face after voting for Obama makes me smile.

EDIT: FWIW, Todd Palin didn't join the Alaskan Independence Party until two years after Joe Vogler's death. The AIP does want the adoption of an in-state referendum that includes secession as an option...but its overall tone is conservative/libertarian, with major focuses on gun rights, limited government, privatization, home schooling...and its national affiliation is with the Constitution Party.

Speaking of third parties, let's discuss Barack Obama's membership in the socialist New Party back when he was running for Illionis State Senate.

Half of me just wants to stare.

The other half is wondering how deeply developed this case of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) truly is.

Her very presence in this race speaks poorly of my country, because if our standards have sunk SO LOW that we'll stomach her as a leader just because she's not hard to look at, then we're lost as a nation.

Emphasis mine.

That you can say this with a straight face after voting for Obama makes me smile.

Seriously, if you're not going to actually support your own arguments and instead resort to condescending BS that you picked up from Hannity, then you're done here. If you're not going to add anything to the conversation, then you really have no business typing words. I'd tell you to go f**k yourself but you'd just single it out, ignore every other point I made and declare yourself TEH INTERNET VICTOR again.

EDIT: FWIW, Todd Palin didn't join the Alaskan Independence Party until two years after Joe Vogler's death.

Oh, well that just makes it ALL BETTER. Does that mean I get to join the Nazi party because hey, Hitler's been dead awhile so it should be okay?

Speaking of third parties, let's discuss Barack Obama's membership in the socialist New Party back when he was running for Illionis State Senate.

From the website of The New Party

The New Party is a progressive political organization taking root around the U.S. By starting small and thinking long-term, we're building a multi-racial, lively and creative political organization that can, over time, break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.

Sure sounds a lot better than Joe Vogler's

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

"Pallin' around with terrorists" indeed.

I never thought I would see the word 'Blogosphere' used seriously.

Palin is cleared of all Troopergate charges

Per CNN.

I find something odd though.

An earlier probe launched by the state Legislature concluded that Palin unlawfully abused her power by trying to get her sister's ex-husband fired from the state police force. That inquiry concluded that her firing of Monegan stemmed in part from his refusal to get rid of her former relative, but was within her authority as governor.

So the first probe concluded that Palin unlawfully abused power...power that was within her authority as governor to use...

o.o?

It's not just about a military budget. It's about cutting back on our military's capacity. Our nuclear weapons (our deterrent) DO have a shelf-life, and they need to be overhauled and replenished with new materials to remain effective. Our military - particularly vehicles in the Air Force and Army - are operating off of a template that's decades-old; the military is currently updating to a more advanced combat template across all branches. There's no point in having a military if it's not going to be an effective one.

But does the US really need to be as big a superpower as it is? Rather than focusing on nuclear weapons (something for which there are already enough to destroy the world "several times over") as a deterrent, wouldn't it better to improve US relations with the rest of the world? After all, seeing as how people have already killed themselves for the sake of attacking the US, I doubt you could really scare them out of that...

If they want their country's government to interact with our government in a manner more befitting to their tastes, then they can elect politicians who will act in such ways in their own countries.

So it's not the US but other countries that need to change to get along better with the US?

Though who runs the country is up to the people in that country, I'm just saying it might be a good idea for those people to take into account what people outside of their borders think of their leaders.

I did like Ron Paul's domestic ideas, but I never did like his foreign policy ideas.

You mean you'd say you feel compelled to vote for someone whose policies with respect to the rest of the world you don't like, because you put that much higher priority on domestic policy?

And Chuck Baldwin is only a Ross Perot factor as far as I'm concerned; the only viable candidate against Obama at this point is McCain.

Because that's who more people are voting for. Shouldn't the way to change that be for more people to vote for candidates other than Obama and McCain? If "my vote doesn't count among millions of votes" doesn't cut it for whether or not to vote, why does it cut for who to vote for? Why doesn't the same reasoning "if everyone thought that way, no one would vote" apply to "if everyone thought that way, no one would vote for that candidate"? Since the election is for the public to decide their government, wouldn't it be more logical then to think of it as a poll where the question is "who would you most like to see running the government?"

Also, did you see the links called "left-wing" and "right-wing" in my earlier post?

Socialism tends to work in an inverse proportion to how large a country is; the bigger the country, the less it works without the need for an overbearing system of government to control everything (aka, communism).

True enough, smaller communities tend to have more of a sense of community than larger communities, but still, just because it's a large country doesn't mean that a few socialist policies will be a completely slippery slope...

Think about it; the redistribution of wealth is far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer than it is a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

Not necessarily; so long as the State uses that income for public services it will eventually get back to the poorer, and in some cases public services give arguably more "individual freedom" than having them run by businesses, such as that of people who might not afford it otherwise to go to a public university where the tuition is partly paid for, or to have the treatment for a disease one ended up with by circumstance partly paid for so that those who couldn't afford the treatment otherwise could have it...

That said, I'd like to think taxes could ideally be shifted off income tax and more onto sales tax; I don't know much about economics so I don't know how realistic that would be, but I'm just saying that to me the idea of taxing people for spending sounds more appealing than taxing them just for being rich.

Oh and did you see the paragraph I edited onto the post you responded to?

EDIT: Fixed typos.

Damnation, I came to the party late.

Anyway, this argument switched round from a discussion on the anti-Hillary to why socialism is the devil. I don't know per se why you hate socialism with any kind of passion, Ultra, but I'm pretty sure it's never done anything to you. Americans aren't so diametrically opposed to redistributing their income to people who don't necessarily work; very few people slam Social Security as the worst policy in history. The government could do so much worse to you than ask for a small contribution from your income to supporting others.

As for simple Sarah, I can't be bothered drumming up the energy to be disgusted by her adulating fanboys and utter vapidity. We've gone over this ground more times than we needed so to do. We get it: she's a maverick. Bush was a maverick, too. In an age where everyone is more deeply interconnected than ever before, a nation-state doing whatever it wants helps nobody, including itself. So for all those isolationist fans or for anyone particularly keen on not having allies around when needed, this is the foreign policy for you.

Look on the bright side, Ultra. A victory for Obama means at least four years for conservatives everywhere to criticise everything he does unblinkingly and without question.

Damnation, I came to the party late.

Anyway, this argument switched round from a discussion on the anti-Hillary to why socialism is the devil. I don't know per se why you hate socialism with any kind of passion, Ultra, but I'm pretty sure it's never done anything to you. Americans aren't so diametrically opposed to redistributing their income to people who don't necessarily work; very few people slam Social Security as the worst policy in history. The government could do so much worse to you than ask for a small contribution from your income to supporting others.

As for simple Sarah, I can't be bothered drumming up the energy to be disgusted by her adulating fanboys and utter vapidity. We've gone over this ground more times than we needed so to do. We get it: she's a maverick. Bush was a maverick, too. In an age where everyone is more deeply interconnected than ever before, a nation-state doing whatever it wants helps nobody, including itself. So for all those isolationist fans or for anyone particularly keen on not having allies around when needed, this is the foreign policy for you.

Look on the bright side, Ultra. A victory for Obama means at least four years for conservatives everywhere to criticise everything he does unblinkingly and without question.

Quoted for truth.

I support Palin as the GOP Presidental nominee of 2012

Obama/the Democratic nominee would want an easy blowout four yeas from now.

I support Palin as the GOP Presidental nominee of 2012

Obama/the Democratic nominee would want an easy blowout four yeas from now.

I lol'd. That's SO damn true, man!

I support Palin as the GOP Presidental nominee of 2012

Obama/the Democratic nominee would want an easy blowout four yeas from now.

She won't get it. She'd get eaten alive in a primary contest. Can you imagine putting her on a debate stage with Huckabee, Romney and Jindal? God, Romney ALONE would smell her blood in the water and go into a feeding frenzy. In fact, he might already be aiming to tear her throat out...

Of course the more she embarrasses herself the more the base circles around her and attacks her opponent, so it could get crazy. I've been quite enthusiastic to see the theocons, corporatecons, and fascist plutocrats (neocons) figure out that they are not entirely compatible.

So what you're saying Vec is that her mass-popularity to ignorance-size is so massive she's attained her own political gravitational field? And that lesser heavenly planetcons will be drawn into orbit around her and likely enter into decaying orbits and eventually collide into each other?

~Tobe

More like this if you look at it solar-ly.

She has little experience politically. So she's a blue star.

But she gotten so much attention and unfournetly, support. Her ego makes her giant blue star.

Of course, being a giant star isn't good whether blue (young) or red (old). She exposes her own idioicy. I.E. Her explodes into Supernova!

Now onto McCain's aides, i.e. the unlucky planets who had to rotate around her. Once the election is over, they reveal pretty nasty stuff about her (throwing tantrums, not understanding Africa continent). This is the planet's citizens trying to save their own doomed planets. lol

I just read this again to try to find out just what it is republicans like about Palin, since Ultra is pretty sane as republicans go.

But other than that she is a hard conservative, Ultra's said nothing in her favor other than comparing her to what he thinks Obama is.

Maybe they took those things they foolishly claimed about Obama (inexperienced, empty suit, just a celebrity) and, going nuts because nobody believed them, decided to nominate a politician who actually is those things just to spite us. Some republicans call her their Obama, so perhaps she is some kind of huge embodiment of their interpretation of the Obama rorschach test.

As a fan of psychology it is fascinating to me.

The most delicious aspect of the implosion of the republicans is hard to declare, but one of them is how they've "misunderestimated" one of the most obviously shrewd political geniuses in history as some kind of buffoon. It's like the icing on the cake of future history regarding the movement as comically absurd. It's more advantageous to sit back and let them hang themselves, but it's hard to resist the urge to inform them of how Obama is setting up a major screwing of their entire ideology.

And WTF, how can they call the guy with ice in his veins weak? Because he said to talk to enemies? OH NOES! Don't "speak softly and carry a big stick," just beat your chest and betray your insecurity, eh, republican party?

Maybe they took those things they foolishly claimed about Obama (inexperienced, empty suit, just a celebrity) and, going nuts because nobody believed them, decided to nominate a politician who actually is those things just to spite us. Some republicans call her their Obama, so perhaps she is some kind of huge embodiment of their interpretation of the Obama rorschach test.

I doubt most of the conservative movement has given that much thought to the irony of the situation. However, I do believe that it is not only President Obama who has done over conservative ideology in its present form, but also the ineptitude of it in action as embodied in the Bush Administration.

I can't find it, but I want to say that a recently conducted straw poll indicates Mrs Palin is only fourth or so in a lineup of preferred 2012 contenders, with Romney leading the charge. Of course, it's absurdly early to start making decisions about this, but my take on that, if true, is that she represents everything that the partisans (the people who care about winning elections as opposed to the ideologues, who care about a candidate's bent on the spectrum) detest. She brings nothing to the table but a vague sense of hokey neoconservatism repackaged (different label, same bad taste) and no new ideas that capture people's imaginations. She'd be wrecked like a train contesting President Obama on ideas alone, to say nothing of the kind of contempt for neoconservatism that many people now have.

Edit: Found it. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/01/1815249.aspx?GT1=43001 Palin tied for third, alongside Ron Paul. That's scarcely a hopeful sign for her.

The reason the Republicans like her are the same reason they like Jindal and Steele.

She's not an old white male. She's just a token like the other two. But unlike typical tokens, they're not very bright. =/

Highly accurate depiction of Palin's 2012 campaign:

Published on Sunday, March 1, 2009 by The New York Times

The Ecstasy and the Agony

by Frank Rich

Barack Obama must savor the moment while he can. It may never get better than this.

As he stood before Congress on Tuesday night, the new president was armed with new job approval percentages in the 60s. After his speech, the numbers hit the stratosphere: CBS News found that support for his economic plans spiked from 63 percent to 80. Had more viewers hung on for the Republican response from Bobby Jindal, the unintentionally farcical governor of Louisiana, Obama might have aced a near-perfect score.

His address was riveting because it delivered on the vision he had promised a battered populace during the campaign: Government must step in boldly when free markets run amok and when national crises fester unaddressed for decades. For all the echoes of F.D.R.'s first fireside chat, he also evoked his own memorably adult speech on race. Once again he walked us through a lucid step-by-step mini-lecture on "how we arrived" at an impasse that's threatening America's ability to move forward.

Obama's race speech may have saved his campaign. His first Congressional address won't rescue the economy. But it brings him to a significant early crossroads in his presidency - one full of perils as well as great opportunities. To get the full political picture, look beyond Obama's popularity in last week's polls to the two groups of Americans whose approval numbers are in the toilet. There is good news for Obama in these findings, but there's also a stark indication of the unchecked populist rage that could still overrun his ambitious plans.

The first group in national disfavor is the G.O.P. In the latest New York Times/CBS News survey, 63 percent said that Congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package mostly for political reasons; only 17 percent felt that the Republicans should stick with their own policies rather than cooperate with Obama and the Democrats. The second group of national villains is corporate recipients of taxpayer money: only 39 percent approve of a further bailout for banks, and only 22 percent want more money going to Detroit's Big Three.

The good news for Obama is that he needn't worry about the Republicans. They're committing suicide. The morning-after conservative rationalization of Jindal's flop was that his adenoidal delivery, not his words, did him in, and that media coaching could banish his resemblance to Kenneth the Page of "30 Rock." That's denial. For Jindal no less than Obama, form followed content.

The Louisiana governor, alternately smug and jejune, articulated precisely the ideology - those G.O.P. "policies" in the Times/CBS poll - that Americans reject: the conviction that government is useless and has no role in an emergency. Given that the most mismanaged federal operation in modern memory was inflicted by a Republican White House on Jindal's own state, you'd think he'd change the subject altogether.

But like all zealots, Jindal is oblivious to how nonzealots see him. Pleading "principle," he has actually turned down some $100 million in stimulus money for Louisiana. And, as he proudly explained on "Meet the Press" last weekend, he can't wait to be judged on "the results" of his heroic frugality.

Good luck with that. He's rejecting aid for a state that ranks fourth in children living below the poverty line and 46th in high school graduation rates, while struggling with a projected budget shortfall of more than $1.7 billion.

If you're baffled why the G.O.P. would thrust Jindal into prime time, the answer is desperation. Eager to update its image without changing its antediluvian (or antebellum) substance, the party is trying to lock down its white country-club blowhards. The only other nonwhite face on tap, alas, is the unguided missile Michael Steele, its new national chairman. Steele has of late been busy promising to revive his party with an "off-the-hook" hip-hop P.R. campaign, presumably with the perennially tan House leader John Boehner leading the posse.

At least the G.O.P.'s newfound racial sensitivity saved it from choosing the white Southern governor often bracketed with Jindal as a rising "star," Mark Sanford of South Carolina. That would have been an even bigger fiasco, for Sanford is from the same state as Ty'Sheoma Bethea, the junior high school student who sat in Michelle Obama's box on Tuesday night and whose impassioned letter to Congress was quoted by the president. **I didn't vote for that bastard.**

In her plea, the teenager begged for aid to her substandard rural school. Without basic tools, she poignantly wrote, she and her peers cannot "prove to the world" that they too might succeed at becoming "lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president."

Her school is in Dillon, where the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, grew up. The school's auditorium, now condemned, was the site of Bernanke's high school graduation. Dillon is now so destitute that Bernanke's middle-class childhood home was just auctioned off in a foreclosure sale. Unemployment is at 14.2 percent.

Governor Sanford's response to such hardship - his state over all has the nation's third-highest unemployment rate - was not merely a threat to turn down federal funds but a trip to Washington to actively lobby against the stimulus bill. He accused the three Republican senators who voted for it of sabotaging "the future of our civilization." In his mind the future of civilization has little to do with the future of students like Ty'Sheoma Bethea.

What such G.O.P. "stars" as Sanford and Jindal have in common, besides their callous neo-Hoover ideology, are their phony efforts to portray themselves as populist heroes. Their role model is W., that brush-clearing "rancher" by way of Andover, Yale and Harvard. Listening to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father's inability to pay for an obstetrician, you'd never guess that at the time his father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in nuclear physics. Sanford's first political ad in 2002 told of how growing up on his "family's farm" taught him "about hard work and responsibility." That "farm," the Charlotte Observer reported, was a historic plantation appraised at $1.5 million in the early 1980s. From that hardscrabble background, he struggled on to an internship at Goldman Sachs.

G.O.P. pseudopopulism ran riot last week as right-wing troops rallied around their latest Joe the Plumber: Rick Santelli, the ranting CNBC foe of Obama's mortgage rescue program. Ann Coulter proposed a Santelli run for president, and Twitterers organized national "tea parties" to fuel his taxpayers' revolt. Even with a boost from NBC, whose networks seized a promotional opening by incessantly recycling the Santelli "controversy," the bonfire fizzled. It did so because - as last week's polls also revealed - the mortgage bailout, with a 60-plus percent approval rating, is nearly as popular as Obama.

The Santelli revolution's flameout was just another confirmation that hard-core Republican radicals are now the G.O.P.'s problem, not the president's. Rahm Emanuel has it right when he says the administration must try bipartisanship, but it doesn't have to succeed. Voters give Obama credit for trying, and he can even claim success with many Republican governors, from Schwarzenegger to Crist. Now he can move on and let his childish adversaries fight among themselves, with Rush Limbaugh as the arbitrating babysitter. (Last week he gave Jindal a thumb's up.)

But that good news for Obama is countered by the bad. The genuine populist rage in the country - aimed at greedy C.E.O.'s, not at the busted homeowners mocked as "losers" by Santelli - cannot be ignored or finessed. Though Obama was crystal clear on Tuesday that there can be "no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis," it was telling that he got fuzzy when he came to what he might do about it. He waited two days to drop that shoe in his budget: a potential $750 billion in banking "asset purchases" on top of the previous $700 billion bailout.

Therein lies the Catch-22 that could bring the recovery down. As Obama said, we can't move forward without a functioning financial system. But voters of both parties will demand that their congressmen reject another costly rescue of it. Americans still don't understand why many Wall Street malefactors remain in place or why the administration's dithering banking policy lacks the boldness and clarity of Obama's rhetoric.

Nor can a further bailout be easily sold by a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, whose lax oversight of the guilty banks while at the New York Fed remains a subject of journalistic inquiry. In a damning 5,600-word article from Bloomberg last week, he is portrayed as a second banana, a timid protégé of the old boys who got us into this disaster. Everyone testifies to Geithner's brilliance, but Jindal, a Rhodes scholar, was similarly hyped. Like the Louisiana governor, the Treasury secretary is a weak public speaker not because he lacks brains or vocal training but because his message doesn't fly.

Among the highlights of Obama's triumphant speech was his own populist jeremiad about the "fancy drapes" and private jets of Wall Street. But talk is not action. Two days later, as ABC News reported, the president of taxpayer- supported Bank of America took a private jet to New York to stonewall Andrew Cuomo's inquest into $3.6 billion of suspect bonuses.

Handing more public money to the reckless banks that invented this culture and stuck us with the wreckage is the new third rail of American politics. If Obama doesn't forge a better plan, neither his immense popularity nor even political foes as laughable as Jindal can insulate him from getting burned.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Frank Rich is a regular columnist for The New York Times. He is the other author of many book, including The Great Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina.

Palin might be nimble when it comes to her feet, but not when it comes to using her brain. Just my opinion.

Neither is Rush, Steele, Jindal, McCain, Bush, etcetera...

Maybe they took those things they foolishly claimed about Obama (inexperienced, empty suit, just a celebrity) and, going nuts because nobody believed them, decided to nominate a politician who actually is those things just to spite us. Some republicans call her their Obama, so perhaps she is some kind of huge embodiment of their interpretation of the Obama rorschach test.

I doubt most of the conservative movement has given that much thought to the irony of the situation. However, I do believe that it is not only President Obama who has done over conservative ideology in its present form, but also the ineptitude of it in action as embodied in the Bush Administration.

I can't find it, but I want to say that a recently conducted straw poll indicates Mrs Palin is only fourth or so in a lineup of preferred 2012 contenders, with Romney leading the charge. Of course, it's absurdly early to start making decisions about this, but my take on that, if true, is that she represents everything that the partisans (the people who care about winning elections as opposed to the ideologues, who care about a candidate's bent on the spectrum) detest. She brings nothing to the table but a vague sense of hokey neoconservatism repackaged (different label, same bad taste) and no new ideas that capture people's imaginations. She'd be wrecked like a train contesting President Obama on ideas alone, to say nothing of the kind of contempt for neoconservatism that many people now have.

Edit: Found it. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/01/1815249.aspx?GT1=43001 Palin tied for third, alongside Ron Paul. That's scarcely a hopeful sign for her.

It seems somewhat inconsistent that for Ron Paul to have had as much support as he did, Chuck Baldwin (the candidate he endorsed during the election, IIRC) only got a few hundred thousand votes. Can't help but think it's because of that nonsensical "I won't vote for those not likely to win" catch-22...

Makes sense that Romney would be in the lead though; don't know much about him but I remember reading some Time magazine article from during the election about how he was following closely behind McCain...

Romney has no real chance. He's a Mormon.

Romney has no real chance. He's a Mormon.

Ah yes, I remember hearing about that before. It's interesting to hear about the religious fundamentalists biting the hand that feeds them, let alone for being the wrong kind of Christian. o.o

Mormons in Congress is one thing. We've only had one non-Protestant President: John Kennedy, and he was Catholic. There was talk that Kennedy would take his marching orders from the Pope. Imagine people saying Romney would take his marching orders from the Mormon President...

I swear it should be a prerequisite for election to be either agnostic or atheist.

~Tobe

I swear it should be a prerequisite for election to be either agnostic or atheist.

~Tobe

But then who are the religious (read: 'Christian') masses gonna vote for, HUH?! HUH?!?!?!

Let the bastards write-in Jesus, or Pat Robertson...

I'd take Jesus over Pat Robertson any day!

I'd take STALIN over Pat Robertson...

I swear it should be a prerequisite for election to be either agnostic or atheist.

~Tobe

But then who are the religious (read: 'Christian') masses gonna vote for, HUH?! HUH?!?!?!

Well, "lesser of two evils" seems to suffice to many as a reason for voting McCain. I'd like to see it suffice as a reason for voting the lesser "evil" of the "evil atheists"

Ah yes, I remember hearing about that before. It's interesting to hear about the religious fundamentalists biting the hand that feeds them, let alone for being the wrong kind of Christian. o.o

The irony is that Mormons and Evangalicals have more in common than they do.