Straw Poll: Who do you want in 2012?

I'm not convinced any of the people on this list can beat the President, partially because of previous stumbles and partially because of the math.

Still, primaries are all about persuading your fellows to vote for your candidate, unlike the general election which is about holding your nose and voting for the idiot your fellows chose instead. So who's it going to be?


And why?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:32 AM



Comments

1 Sarah!

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at January 28, 2011 07:37 AM (xqhoO)

2 Nobody from the GOP is actually going to pose a threat to Obama. The global elites will see to that. So since we're going to go down in flames, we might as well offer a real goddamn Americans with real goddamn balls. I choose Sarah.

Posted by: Truman North at January 28, 2011 07:39 AM (8ay4x)

3 Why can't I ever get through a thirty-word post without spelling, grammar or syntax errors?
Memo to Truman: Think shorter thoughts

Posted by: Truman North at January 28, 2011 07:40 AM (8ay4x)

4 I met and got to talk with Herman Cain in a small room with a dozen or so people a couple of weeks ago in Cedar Rapids and I liked his ideas

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at January 28, 2011 07:41 AM (g9yN1)

5 Well, I wanted Mike Pence, but since he has clearly overthought the matter and pulled out, I'll have to go with Romney. Hopefully Romney will grow a set this time and stop with all the pandering.

I am officially mad at Mike Pence.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at January 28, 2011 07:41 AM (x3Anv)

6 Where's the 'stache, dang it.

Posted by: Lizabth at January 28, 2011 07:41 AM (JZBti)

7 Not sure who I want but for the sheer 'watch the media's heads explode' value, it'd be fun to see a Palin/Cain ticket.

Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 07:43 AM (VuLos)

8 I voted for Thune cause all the other choices are horrible. Gosh I wish we could do better than that group.

Posted by: jw at January 28, 2011 07:44 AM (pHf5T)

9 From this list, I go with Sarah Palin.

My dream, though, would be DeMint-Coburn.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 28, 2011 07:44 AM (86FvD)

10 Palin because she is not afraid to state the conservative point of view. I don't give a damn if the mfm tells me she is unelectable, that we need another rino candidate.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 07:44 AM (w7Lv+)

11 None of the above as of January 28, 2011. (Yes, I'm also kind of hacked at Pence.)
That's why I don't like this kind of poll.
Also, the eeyoreism drumbeat of "we are doomed" is lame, lamer, lamest. If Tuesday night was this guy's A-game, he's clearly beatable.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 07:46 AM (B+qrE)

12 My dream, though, would be DeMint-Coburn.

Doesn't that make you LibertarianInNameOnlyJim?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 28, 2011 07:46 AM (XVaFd)

13 Had Romney not been a Mormon, I would think he would be most electable. baptist will vote for a Kenyan before voting for a Mormon.

No, I am not baptist, but I live in bible believing baptist land and it is a fact that if you are not baptist, you may as well be the anti-christ.

So, in the mean-time, I think Newt is the most electable although Rudy is my favorite, baggage and all.

And no, I have never done LSD either.

Posted by: sTevo at January 28, 2011 07:46 AM (sa6D2)

14 Although back in college, I suggested Nino Scalia for president. In seriousness.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 28, 2011 07:46 AM (86FvD)

15 Why no "not sure at present?"
Why no "none of the above?"
Seriously, although there are some names on the list I would not support under any circumstances (hear me, Newt?), I have to hear a lot more from all of these potential candidates before I can meaningfully evaluate which one most deserves my support.

Posted by: Fred Baumann at January 28, 2011 07:47 AM (dJyZQ)

16 I'm looking for either a Palin/Cain or Cain/Palin ticket, to be honest. I think those two together would be a dang good team. Plus from a purely media hatred standpoint, what do you have? A woman and a black man; any over the top attacks are going to eventually become racist or misogynist in nature. I'd just love watching the media try to do a delicate tapdance to cover that without exposing their true colors. Would be great.

But hell no to Romney. Obama Lite we really don't need. (remembering RomneyCare which he'd like us to forget...)

Posted by: Danny at January 28, 2011 07:48 AM (oLvBm)

17 >>>Had Romney not been a Mormon, I would think he would be most electable. baptist will vote for a Kenyan before voting for a Mormon.

My "open-minded liberal" dad makes it pretty clear he'd never ever vote for a Mormon.

Although I don't think there's a Democratic Mormon in Murtha's old district, so take that into consideration.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 28, 2011 07:48 AM (86FvD)

18 I'm officially undecided at this pointbut I do know I don't like almost all of that list.

Posted by: Annabelle at January 28, 2011 07:49 AM (4kxCX)

19 Hard to say. They all bring something different to the table, but none of them seems to have enough going for them to win. Just look how fractured their constituencies are:

John Thune - Librarians and boring-ass Dakotans

Mitt Romney - Hair gel users and socialized medicine supporters

Ron Paul - UFOlogists and anti-Fed reserve zealots

Rudy Giuliani - No discernible constituency

Sarah Palin - Social cons and MILF-hunters

Haley Barbour - Foghorn Leghorn fans

Mitch Daniels - Those who drink late into the night hoping for more excitement in their lives

Mike Huckabee - Strict Southern Baptists who don't drink or swear

Herman Cain - Pizza lovers

Tim Pawlenty - Dichotomous film fans

Posted by: This isn't looking good at January 28, 2011 07:49 AM (yARWD)

20 i seriously doubt newt is electable.....and i don't believe in the stupid party hierarchy of "it's his turn, he paid his dues" crap.....from this group....sarah....but maybe herman, i don't know enough about herman to cast my vote for him today

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 07:50 AM (eOXTH)

21 FRED!!

Oh, wait...

Posted by: harrison at January 28, 2011 07:51 AM (LnEx0)

22 Mitch has experience, and knows how government works. Cain is an outsider, which has an appeal but not one I like.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 07:51 AM (YKOnu)

23 I think Newt is the most electable
Based on what, exactly? Sorry, that's just a bizarre statement.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 07:51 AM (B+qrE)

24 My idea of compromise is voting for the sorry son of a bitch that the saboteurs who are my fellow repulibcans nominate for president instead of saying FOaD and staying home or writing in a good candidate. I'm for Palin.

Posted by: Immolate at January 28, 2011 07:51 AM (73fPE)

25 damn, thune is good looking.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 07:51 AM (eOXTH)

26 Posted by: This isn't looking good

Nice!

Posted by: sTevo at January 28, 2011 07:52 AM (sa6D2)

27 BTW, Ace, I sometimes post expecting to be dumped, but I wasn't dumped, apparently my IP changed, so you might want to reban me, just for ballance.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 07:53 AM (YKOnu)

28 Why no "not sure at present?"
Why no "none of the above?"
I'm trying to get an idea of support, no matter how tepid. Of course this early in the game most are going to say "not sure yet." That's rather uninteresting. It's more informative to find out who people are supporting, even a little bit, and why.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 28, 2011 07:53 AM (XVaFd)

29 I think a cardboard cutout of Adolf Hitler could beat Obama in the next election. After all, he is basically a cardboard cutout of Mussolini. The MSM will pull out all of the stops, including making up imaginary sources of info like they did with Bush, but it won't matter squat in the end.

Generally the side that is most pissed off wins in our modern electorate and we are definitely the most pissed off. If a guy like Obama can win two terms we might as well all start looking for a new country because this one is done.

Posted by: Polybius at January 28, 2011 07:54 AM (sfNbl)

30 >>>Mitch has experience, and knows how government works.

Which is to say, it doesn't. See: RomneyCare.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 28, 2011 07:55 AM (86FvD)

31 I've liked daniels for a while, I don't know if he has the charisma to break through the MFM, but really the MFM wouldn't give him a chance if he was Laurence Olivier anyways, so the substance should be the focus for the activists. Assuming everyone doesn't go full on frum.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 07:56 AM (YKOnu)

32 Based on what, exactly? Sorry, that's just a bizarre statement.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)

Well I qualified it by saying I am not and LSD user.

I think Newt has the most to offer in terms of financial responsibility. If he were to take the gloves off, he could do a lot of damage to O's image by comparing leadership styles and principles. I know Newt is a contrivesial figure but I think he has the most staying power against a lefty press.

Posted by: sTevo at January 28, 2011 07:56 AM (sa6D2)

33 need more Jim Demint in that poll

Posted by: bannor at January 28, 2011 07:57 AM (6AXh/)

34 Daniels has a history of slashing government Libertarian jim.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 07:58 AM (YKOnu)

35 Bob Barr, the strictest constitutional conservative out there, Republican Revolution '94 fly in the globalist revisionism ointment, Libertarian to make public and official his opposition to the Bush-reformation of the GOP. There is no other candidate with all of the real intellectual and experiential expertise to counter Obama's supposed educational insights from having lived outside of the USA. No fluffy sissboombah cheerleading from the Oval Office Chief Executive. Austerity and strength, to the point that it's either specified within the Constitution or not. Political poker face, no cheap plastered smile, definitely anti-PC policy. Priorities are Libertarian v. Neoconservative because of his exactitude with the US Constitution. Barr has the intensity to face down the massive internationalist clout from Putin, Hu, Chavez and any Marxist of any nationality, including Islamic Terrorists. Barr needs no priming in political, governmental or constitutional affairs, and that includes knowing who is who and what to expect.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 07:58 AM (H+LJc)

36 Pawlenty. Smart, not easily flustered, and he's got his shit together on the Economy. Is he boring and dry? Hell yeah. Personally, I think the American people have tried, flash, great oratory (WTF?)...and gotten over "white guilt". They want a "money man". Sarah would make a great high level cabinet member, but too polarizing. And I loves me that woman!

Posted by: hutch1200 at January 28, 2011 08:00 AM (0cqSX)

37 Wow, with all the complaints about Sarah Palin around here, how come she's at the top? I don't even know who Cain is. A lot of those names are presidential re treads, the others thune, cain, pawlenty, daniels, a good part of the country won't recognize. If Sarah Palin, noticing that Bill Clinton seems to be co president would say she is going to have the office and the final say but that she is going to have the advices of Ron Paul, Rudy and the rest, becasue the presidency has become a huge job and one person can't have the audacity to think they can do it without the expertise of all the others then maybe the American people might think that makes sense and might believe her. the only man on the planet who could resurrect cities like Detroit and Baltimore is Rudy. Mittens is one of the best business guys on earth and all the business guys like him, so he could be the business guy. Huckabee could be the social issues guy. She could say, for foreign affairs she will draw on the best minds in the country, people who have an expertise in the matters of certain countries, over a period of their lifetimes. She could also capitalize on the "I haven't gotten one call from the president" meme which seems to be running through the czardom and cabinet.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:01 AM (p302b)

38 Barr was also man enough to appear in Borat too.

Posted by: sTevo at January 28, 2011 08:01 AM (sa6D2)

39 Guys, do not compromise principle because you think Mittens can win. I guarantee he will be on the defensive 24/7 and will be the most beatable. I tell you right now. Sarah is at her low water mark while Mittens and Schmuck are at their high. Just wait until she starts running. I don't want to sound like a loony Palinista but I think she is very likable.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 08:02 AM (c5RQr)

40 Palin, because you dipshits say it can't be done.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 28, 2011 08:02 AM (psCad)

41 Only Daniels and Thune, and maybe Cain stand a chance, the rest are too damaged, or to liberal, but it's an early poll, the field hasn't fielded themselves yet, the loss of Pence is actually a good thing in my opinion, opening the way for Daniels, who I like! He tackled subsidies or universities, for education, he privatized a lot of toll maintenance, and interstate maintenance, he SLASHED the assessor autocracy that was screwing people over with the property taxes, he prosecuted the corrupt politicians who made false accounting requirements. Mitch ain't a shrinking flower, though he talkes like he's trapped in a wet sack.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:03 AM (YKOnu)

42 I picked Palin for name recognition, negative name recognition, I grant you, but still a name. I will add that Herman Cain's business experience is something sorely lacking in lawyer presidents, and is a very positive quality with which I can identify. I could easily cast a vote for Cain if I had to vote tomorrow.
phoenixgirl,
Am I so sick of 'it's so-and-so's turn' crapola. That's how we got both Dole and McCain, which didn't work out too well. Definitely need a coup in the Republican Party to throw out that disgusting 'he's the next batter up' Presidential pick garbage.

Posted by: RickZ at January 28, 2011 08:04 AM (vGy3W)

43 @37
Sorry, Curious, Mitt is not the "business" guy. He is the "crony capitalist big business guy". SP recognizes that and I think she would be one of the only candidates to go on the offense against Obama while Mittens and Schmuck play defense.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 08:05 AM (c5RQr)

44 damn, thune is good looking......
And things like that matter these days. Between O's oratorical prowess and the MFM giving him slobbering tongue baths for being able to rattle off that '60s-reject commie b.s. they learned in grad school, the GOP simply must find a candidate who is telegenic and can string a coherent sentence together if we are going to win.

Posted by: This isn't looking good at January 28, 2011 08:05 AM (yARWD)

45 I would think [Romney] would be most electable.

...because he's a goddammed progressive elitist revisionist wearing conservative values -- and that's what America will elect. Style over substance every time.

I'm not buying that "would be most electable" line to predetermine the next/last fabricated POTUS.


Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 08:05 AM (H+LJc)

46 What if it were Palin and Rand or Ron Paul? I know a lot of lib/dems who like Ron Paul, don't know yet how they feel about Rand, but a lot of them love Ron Paul which I have always found so fascinating.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:06 AM (p302b)

47 Sarah Palin around here, how come she's at the top?
Sarah on top=BUNK!!!

Posted by: hutch1200 at January 28, 2011 08:06 AM (0cqSX)

48 What the hell, this cold has me really out of it. I conflated Mitt with Mitch.

My apologies, Douglas.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 28, 2011 08:06 AM (86FvD)

49 Gov Daniels. Simply because he is d best and most accomplished governor as of today.

Posted by: montel at January 28, 2011 08:06 AM (UPSCr)

50 Chris Christie will be my favorite when he says he is ready. Saw him on the tube the other night and he says he needs more experience.

Posted by: sTevo at January 28, 2011 08:06 AM (sa6D2)

51 You left one off the list Gabe. "The Stache"
http://tinyurl.com/65qteze

Posted by: ScottInMiami at January 28, 2011 08:06 AM (rG+32)

52 btw, I don't want to hear from anyone who votes for Huckabee, #$%^ing Gingrich, or Ron Paul just how "unelectable" Palin is.

A Jerry Falwell/Roman Polanski ticket has a better shot of getting elected than Huck, the Grinch or pencil-neck Paul.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 28, 2011 08:07 AM (psCad)

53 Why no John Bolton???
He's my pick.

Posted by: Big T Party at January 28, 2011 08:07 AM (FfyYt)

54 Had Romney not been a Mormon, I would think he would be most electable.
baptist will vote for a Kenyan before voting for a Mormon. No, I
am not baptist, but I live in bible believing baptist land and it is a
fact that if you are not baptist, you may as well be the anti-christ.<<<sTevo

Speaking as an actual, living, breathing Southern Baptist (I note you capitalize Mormon, but neither Baptist nor Christ. Heathen.), I think I'm qualified to call bullshit here. My aunt married a Mormon, a nice, hardworking, former Navy guy who's also just to the left of Obama. I'd vote for Romney if he wasn't a statist. Which he is.

So, in the mean-time, I think Newt is the most electable although Rudy is my favorite, baggage and all.And no, I have never done LSD either.

For the love of GOD, Montresor. You don't even mind that Newt cosied up to Nazi Pelosi? I know you're not a troll, but damn. To paraphrase the saying around here that most sets my teeth on edge, electability is not the hill I choose to die on.

Posted by: Kerry at January 28, 2011 08:07 AM (a/VXa)

55 Maverick, you mean Bob Barr, the guy recently hanging out with Baby Doc Duvalier in Port-au-Prince? That Bob Barr?
Great choice.
Bob Barr, the legalize marijuana Bob Barr? That Bob Barr?
Great Choice.
The Bob Barr who opposes anti-terror wiretaps? That Bob Barr?
Great choice.
The Bob Barr who voted against the Iraq war resolution? That Bob Barr?
Great choice.
Have I made my point?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:07 AM (B+qrE)

56 Sarah.
The more I read and hear who her enemies are and what her enemies do and say the more I support Sarah Palin.
As her enemies self-identify for the nasty rotters they are it becomes more apparent that Sarah Palin is their greatest threat.
I support Sarah Palin. Media-statists from schultz to rove don't.
It's a clear choice.
Vim Toot!

Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at January 28, 2011 08:07 AM (EDr7s)

57 One thing as sure as death and taxes, is that whoever the GOP nominee is will be demonized as if they are the reincarnation of Hitler. Doesn't matter who it is.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 08:08 AM (w7Lv+)

58 I'll Vote R in the general but never for giuliani or romney or huckabee in the primary, If I have to suck it up and vote for one of those three in the general, I will.

I said during 2008, If The dems offered up Clinton I would vote for clinton over McCain, I only voted for McCain because Obama was THAT EFFING BAD!

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:08 AM (YKOnu)

59 Palin.

Let's get it over with, once and for all.

Posted by: That's PROFESSOR Jennifer Granholm, bitch!!!!1!11 at January 28, 2011 08:09 AM (le5qc)

60 I know a lot of lib/dems who like Ron Paul, don't know yet how they feel
about Rand, but a lot of them love Ron Paul which I have always found
so fascinating. nice post thanks

Posted by: tercme at January 28, 2011 08:10 AM (bTkSJ)

61 We need Bolton, Ryan, Christie and Perry up there.

Christie has said no, but he could be playing coy. Ryan might break out of the pack in the coming budget wars. Perry is suddenly looking better and better, and he definitely has the look of a traditional President. And Bolton, well, he's Bolton, and you G*ddamn well better vote for him or he might show up and want to know why you didn't, and no one wants that.

Posted by: This isn't looking good at January 28, 2011 08:10 AM (yARWD)

62 Daijobu Libertarian jim, it was just a typo, or a mental twitch,.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:11 AM (YKOnu)

63 I get the Palin love around here, but she just can't win, folks. The media strategy against her is too damned effective.
As much as it pains me to do so, I have to go with Willard. Obama's the goal here, and I'm extremely worried as to the judiciary if he wins another term. We may get the Senate and can block the worst of it, but the Grahamnestys on our side will inevitably swing to one of the liberal judges.
Unless Palin can get her favorables back up again - and fast - she's got no hope at all, and those who are saying otherwise need to remember why we make fun of the Obama Zombies.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:11 AM (IH3P2)

64 hahhhah my friend just said, (now remember she's not too swift on politics but she can describe Jimmy Choo's entire line,) that she'd vote for a Palin/clinton (hillary clinton) in a heartbeat. I know, I know but really this is who we are dealing with people.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:12 AM (p302b)

65 I'd support the Bob Barr / Sarah Palin ticket.


Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 08:13 AM (H+LJc)

66 Bolton SecState, not President, that he would be president is just superficial penis measurement.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:13 AM (YKOnu)

67 Sure, I loves me some Sarah Palin nomination.
But don't overlook Tim Pawlenty, and do read his new book.

Posted by: smitty at January 28, 2011 08:13 AM (DYgi8)

68 I get the Palin love around here, but she just can't win, folks. The media strategy against her is too damned effective.

See my post at 57.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 08:13 AM (w7Lv+)

69 Sarah, but I still loves the Fat Man.

Posted by: jeannie at January 28, 2011 08:13 AM (FmT4F)

70 Two quick observations.

1. I have never in my life been menaced by a pack of wayward Mormon kids. As a group, Mormons are the friendliest, most sincere, hardest-working people in our society.

2. I will leave the United States if my only two options are Barack Obama and Bob Barr.

Posted by: This isn't looking good at January 28, 2011 08:14 AM (yARWD)

71 "Have I made my point?"

Who's Bob Barr again? Didn't Pawlenty pass on defending Palin against the Left's blood libel? Well, pass right back at you.

Romney, Massachusetts ObamaCare Lite. PASS.

Thune, Cain, Barbour, Daniels. Whatever. I don't think I could recognize one of them on the street if I saw them.

Btw, has the Republican Party fixed the primary system, so only, I don't know, registered Republicans can vote for our primary candidates? Because, if not, maybe we should cross-post this on Michael Moore's website, see what they think?

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 28, 2011 08:14 AM (psCad)

72 Unless Palin can get her favorables back up again - and fast - she's got no hope at all, and those who are saying otherwise need to remember why we make fun of the Obama Zombies.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:11 AM (IH3P2)
----
Chill out man, wait until she is in it to win it okay?

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 08:15 AM (c5RQr)

73 I don't think Palin wants to be President, I think she wants to be a force, which she already is, as president her influence would be deminished, not to mention, Palin can juke the MFM into ignoring our guys gaffes while still putting out their message. I still say daniels cuz he accomplished a LOT in a short period of time, without big fights, He just outthought everyone who came to battle against him.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:15 AM (YKOnu)

74 Because, if not, maybe we should cross-post this on Michael Moore's website, see what they think?

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 28, 2011 08:14 AM (psCad)

that is a brilliant idea. Send out republican trolls to the lib website and demand polls as to who should be the republican challenger to BO as the republicans are entitled to put up a viable candidate and make it a horse race. You'd get to know who can't make it and who might have even the slightest chance. Most of all you'd get to know who they think they can easily beat.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:16 AM (p302b)

75 Btw, has the Republican Party fixed the primary system, so only, I
don't know, registered Republicans can vote for our primary candidates?
Because, if not, maybe we should cross-post this on Michael Moore's
website, see what they think?

Depends on the state, but most states are winner takes all.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:17 AM (YKOnu)

76 #73
"as president her influence would be deminished..."
Hahahaha!!!!
Vim Toot!

Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at January 28, 2011 08:17 AM (EDr7s)

77 Are you trying to depress us? That's a helluva list.

Based on our discussions yesterday, I hope Rick Perry reconsiders (since Pence will not).

Daniels has surprisingly weak numbers from CATO. Looking at his resume, I see he does have national/international experience, but he really just looks like a suit/aide type. He worked for Lugar and more recently for Eli Lilly, the latter being sort of like a branch of government in Indiana it's that dominating. In the years I was there, the only thing he spoke on with "passion" was the time zone / DST stuff... and he picked the wrong fucking time zone. I honestly don't know what his passions are.

I can't get behind Cain. I won't vote for someone with no voting record for the highest elected office in the land.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 08:17 AM (pW2o8)

78 DeMint

Posted by: dude at January 28, 2011 08:18 AM (J5sg1)

79 If I want the MSM to pick my candidate, I would have been content with Romney/Pawlenty and then watch them get ROLLED by Obama in 2012. There is no GOP candidate that would get anything close to fair and reasonable treatment by the Drive-By's, so why even go there?

I want someone with whom I believe will shake things up, do what's RIGHT for the country, and will make the kooks head for the tall grass (Canada, Europe, etc.) en mass simply because they won't be able to stomach saying the phrase "President-Elect" next to her name.

Other Republicans will only slow the race to the financial abyss. I believe Ryan as Treasury Secretary will actually help turn things around and move us away from it in a decent clip. But he is going to need a strong POTUS to back his play, and the only person on the list who make it happen is Palin.

Flames? Bring it, as I haven't had breakfast yet. ;-)

Posted by: itzWicks at January 28, 2011 08:18 AM (f00CD)

80 I was torn between Danials and Cain, which could be a good ticket with either as prez, imo.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 28, 2011 08:20 AM (r1h5M)

81 I'd support the Bob Barr / Sarah Palin ticket. And I'll support the Miami Dolphins in the Super Bowl a week from Sunday.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:20 AM (B+qrE)

82 Well it won't really matter what you guys think, it will be who Rove and the other old bald white guys like.

Heck the republicans should offer the nomination to hillary, she'd be just as good as all the republicans you listed and she'd win.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:21 AM (p302b)

83 This is the kind of thread I have been looking for. Pick a candidate and state why emphasizing the positives.

I picked Palin because at the present time she supports all of the things I support and opposes all of the things I oppose. Some of those assumptions are based on scarce evidence though.

Another thing is that I don't know a lot about some of the candidates on the list. And as Rasmussen said the other day in that poll from him that I linked, at this stage of the game it is purely name recognition. And as I keep repeating, name recognition is just another name for media face time. If you base your candidate on that you are allowing the MFM to pick your candidate.

And that "my friends" also goes for the bogus electability issue. Unless a candidate is someone like Adolf Hitler "electability" shouldn't even be in your decision cycle. That is the major damn reason we wound up with asshole McCain.

My choice may likely change as more evidence on the candidate's positions is unearthed. Remember, first debate is in May.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 08:21 AM (M9Ie6)

84

HUCKABEE/ROMNEY 2012!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 08:21 AM (7+pP9)

85 See my post at 57.
If you really think that the media's treatment of McCain when he was running for president and its treatment of Palin while she's not running for president are equal, you haven't been paying attention.
Remember, they accused her with zero evidence of being an accesory to mass murder, forced her to respond, and savaged her response, all within the space of a week. Even McCain didn't have to deal with that. We can't draw equivalencies where none exist.
Every spurious rumor, every perceived mis-step, every word she utters that doesn't fall in the liberal lexicon will be attacked, and she will be defeated without Obama lifting a finger.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:23 AM (IH3P2)

86 What about Halle Berry?

Posted by: Guy who likes Halle Berry's breasts at January 28, 2011 08:23 AM (LH6ir)

87 Perry / Bolton

Perry looks and sounds the part, is somewhere in the middle of our conservative requirements, is telegenic and a reasonably good public speaker, and is enthusiastic and optimistic. He also guarantees a Southern and Midwestern sweep, which nearly gets us in the White House right there. The big new is 2012 is that OH is probably going red; we just need to give them someone to grab on to. If we could take PA with them, it's over.

And Bolton for VP? Well, let me ask you this: if something were to happen to my hypothetical President Perry, who else in the entire country would make you feel safer than John Bolton? And he would absolutely stomp the crap out of Joe Biden in a debate (I'm thinking Cheney's evisceration of Edwards here).

Posted by: This isn't looking good at January 28, 2011 08:24 AM (yARWD)

88 I think she realizes there is no substitute for actually being there, she gave the GOP,
tools, with 'death panels' and the like, and they mostly left them on the floor. Christie willing to knife a much better man, than him in Schundler, so the media
sharks could feed, and the ones responsible for fumbling the 'Race to the Top', escaped accountability, Daniels he opted out of addressing that disgraceful speech,
where are they on the largest issue of the moment. Bolton, is probably the only other alternative,

Posted by: justin cord at January 28, 2011 08:25 AM (2C3OH)

89 I'm 58. I remember Clearly the run-up to 1980. From '78 on the rino/demo line was, "Reagan can't win!".
They lie.
Invert everything media/demos say for the truth.
Sarah Palin CAN WIN.
Vim Toot!

Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at January 28, 2011 08:25 AM (EDr7s)

90 It's still early, at this point I support daniels but he hasn't declared, so it's all a hypothetical, I don't like pawlenty, he caves too often, and this isn't the season for caving, Cain is a Wildcard and Thune, while charismatic is a national noone, at least daniels can say "I did this" the others cant. Palin is too damaged, because of the media hatred, and why she should be used as not a lighting rod, but an Iron rod (I used to keep next to my seat in my car something I called a "LePipe" It means, "the Pipe" It's a small narrow rod wrapped in leather, It's what I used to fight off people if they tried to eff with me.

Palin should be our lepipe.

Pawlently lacks backbone,
Christy lacks a period of experience (in executive that is)
Thune while charismatic lacks well, everything
Cain lacks any direct governmental experience
and the rest lack pretty much anything that a republican could want,

So I stick with Daniels for now.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:25 AM (YKOnu)

91 During the election, did you notice that there was no discernible difference between McCain and BO. Well maybe the republican candidate should do that this time. Agree with the president but claim they will do it better and faster.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:26 AM (p302b)

92 They're all going to stop paying you your social security and medicare and you'll be eating alpo when you're living under a bridge.

Posted by: Typical Duplicious DemocRAT at January 28, 2011 08:26 AM (46++H)

93 She's not on the list and won't be ready by 2012, but I was really impressed with Michelle Bachmann the other night. She had the brevity and pithiness that Ryan didn't.

So, at the risk of thread drift, why all the crickets in the dextrosphere?

Posted by: Prufrock at January 28, 2011 08:27 AM (rqDjT)

94 We need to draft Perry.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 08:27 AM (pW2o8)

95 how about adding to the question.....who on this list would cause you to not to vote or to vote for obama......there are two people on there i would never vote for....well one and a 1/2

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 08:27 AM (eOXTH)

96

Srsly -- a Huckabee/Romney ticket would attract all of the evangelicals and socons. Speaking strictly in terms of electability, capturing those demographics would make the ticket virtually unbeatable.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 08:27 AM (7+pP9)

97 Palin/Bachmann in 2012
Sarah is the only pro energy candidate with a proven record: the natural gas line through Canada. (But no international experience there.) The only economic chance we have is a massive investment in fossil and nuclear energy by private industry. I love the oil companies. Without them, I freeze and/or starve.




Posted by: snookered at January 28, 2011 08:28 AM (jchJh)

98
Sarah Palin- because it's what's for dinner. And for VP, this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/45jktnc

Posted by: sartana at January 28, 2011 08:28 AM (+fNcw)

99 Posted by: This isn't looking good at January 28, 2011 08:14 AM (yARWD)

That's quite a threat.

I'll one-up you: I'll leave the United States if my only choice is Obama or William F. Buckley.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:29 AM (LH6ir)

100 And I'll support the Miami Dolphins in the Super Bowl a week from Sunday.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:20 AM (B+qrE)
That made me laugh out loud.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:29 AM (YKOnu)

101 how about adding to the question.....who on this list would cause you to not to vote or to vote for obama......there are two people on there i would never vote for....well one and a 1/2
I'll never vote for Obama. Ever.
However, Newt, Hucky or Ineffectual Idiottm Ron Paul wouldforce me to stay home.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:30 AM (B+qrE)

102 who on this list would cause you to not to vote or to vote for
obama......there are two people on there i would never vote for....well
one and a 1/2
I would not vote for Ron Paul.


I loathe him, but I would vote for Huckabee because I think he'd be at least somewhat controllable by a Republican Congress. And I don't think he actually hates the fact that American is Superpower.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 08:30 AM (pW2o8)

103 Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 08:27 AM (7+pP9)

It's a little early in the day for Valu-Rite.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:30 AM (LH6ir)

104 Pence opting out yesterday was significant, since that makes it more likely that Palin runs
She could either be Goldwater '64, going down to glorious hopeless defeat, or Reagan '80, an avatar of revitalized conservatism. Either way, she'll embody conservative principles and give as good as she gets.
Although not on the list, DeMint is my choice if he runs. He's got a natural built-in advantage in South Carolina.
Really, though, since I'm realistic about our chances (50-50 at best), I can live with anyone except Huckabee. If the GOP nominates him, it will be time to find a new political party.

Posted by: phineas gage at January 28, 2011 08:30 AM (+k/T0)

105 No Christie, no clicky...

Boom ticket: Fat Man and the 'Stache...

Posted by: Mr Wolf at January 28, 2011 08:32 AM (hbv0S)

106
Have I made my point?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)

The sound bite point.

Haiti. You speak as an authority on Haitian matters? Yes, Barr is a legal consultant for the former president -- in a place that was hell but is even worse now since Clinton/GHWBush organized its recovery. My favorite Republican Fred Thompson formerly provided legal counsel to the foreign Muslim interests reputedly tied to the funding of 9/11. Lawyers. Legal counsel. Regarding Barr in Haiti, at least Barr is an expert intelligence analyst as well as Reagan appointed Federal Prosecutor. Circa, insert your argument on the full Barr record what you will.

Get past the habitual neoconservative kneejerk and figure exactly what Barr opposed about the Bush reformation of the GOP. Barr fought neoconservatism as it grew under Bush's authoritarian growing federal abuses of power: reconstructed Intelligence Reports from the Middle East, the Patriot Act, DHS, Every Child Left Behind and the Faith Based Initiative. You find no fault with authoritarianism so long as it smiles and shares your party affiliation.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 08:33 AM (H+LJc)

107 who is the stache?

And if a guy doesn't want the presidency he doesn't want the presidency. Heck you haven't even heard if Sarah Palin wants the presidency, she may just like the job of troublemaker.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:33 AM (p302b)

108 I will vote for Zombie Hitler before I vote for Huckabee. Get your goddamn stretchmarked fingers out of my McDonald's fries, sir. You know who else believes in the Bible - somewhere less than 300 million Americans. Find one of them to run over Huck.

Btw, commuting the sentences of murderers because they "found Jesus" isn't cool. Let Stabby-McRaperton settle up with the Lamb on the other side, not here.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 28, 2011 08:33 AM (psCad)

109 a Huckabee/Romney ticket

Ah yes, combining Huckabee's list of Willie Hortons with Mitt Romney's "Hey, you couldn't have done any better" Healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2011 08:34 AM (TpXEI)

110 Posted by: Mr Wolf at January 28, 2011 08:32 AM (hbv0S)

Christie is an excellent governor, but is completely unsuited for national office. He cozies up to the Muslims, and recently nominated an Islamist to the NJ Supreme Court.

Do you really want someone like that in the oval office?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:34 AM (LH6ir)

111 So, at the risk of thread drift, why all the crickets in the dextrosphere?
I'll take a wild stab it at. Michele Bachmann is effective where she is, but you must know that there are many things impeding her.
1. Media misogyny. She's regularly vilified as a "dumb broad." Same deal with Palin, but Bachmann has far less stature.
2. As difficult as a run for Mike Pence would have been (and for the record, I'd have been 110% behind it), hers would be even more so, coming from such a small post.
3. She throws way too many bombs, and she knows she throws them. Too much rhetoric like that, and you start drawing unfavorable comparisons to Newt Gingrich and Alan Grayson.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:36 AM (IH3P2)

112 Btw, has the Republican Party fixed the primary system, so only, I don't
know, registered Republicans can vote for our primary candidates?

The Republican Party has no say on whether the primary is open or not. That is set by the general assembly of the State and has been supported by the courts. The Republican Party actually sued when SC went to open primaries; they lost.

As for primary dates that is set by the general assemblies as well, but the Republican Party conventions also pick the dates. Generally the legislature will go along with the dates picked by BOTH parties for the primary.

As for winner take all rules, I think that is the worst ting we have and it is the reason McCain was able to win while 70% of the base opposed him. Unfortunately, the last meeting of the Party wigs barely touched on that. They went to proportional ballots for the Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC primaries, and kept winner take all for the rest.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 08:36 AM (M9Ie6)

113 Bolton actually put out rhetorical feelers Curious. The Stache is John Bolton, check the older threads, there is some funny suff in there.

Posted by: Douglas at January 28, 2011 08:36 AM (YKOnu)

114 People love to say how smart this candidate is or how experienced another one is. None of that matters if you don't have courage. Because we all know the MFM will come at the Republican nominee with everything they have. Only Sarah Palin has been shown to be fearless.

Posted by: Mark in Spokane at January 28, 2011 08:36 AM (A2FwP)

115 ok. Who are the six people who voted for Huckabee?

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 08:37 AM (wuv1c)

116 "I'll never vote for Obama. Ever.

However, Newt, Hucky or Ineffectual Idiottm Ron Paul would force me to stay home."

This. Well, I would actually "pull the lever" for Paul. Because he's batshit crazy, BUT maybe he'll...no, changed my mind. Wasn't Paul one of the Republican's greatest earmarkers? Yes? $#%^ him.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 28, 2011 08:37 AM (psCad)

117 Had to go with Herman Cain. I love Sarah Palin, and I thnk Mitch Daniels would have a great shot, but there's just something about Mr. Cain that I love. He has an "it" factor that I can't put my finger on, but whatever "it" is, he's got "it."
Also, I like that he's a businessman, not a lawyer or a career politician. I want someone in the oval office who understands how the economy works. The dumb twit we have in there now knows less about the economy than my 8-year-old niece.

Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 08:38 AM (4df7R)

118 Wait...what??
Palin is in the lead?? I thought she was hated by most conservatives.
While I agree with most of the list on the issues...the three most likely to stick to their guns (and I pre-emptively denounce myself) and not turn squishy are Barbour, Cain and Palin.
My ultimate choice is Cain. I am color blind to him, mean___ I would like him for his positions even if he were green...but I think his record of personal succerss, intelligence, strong personality, and non-confrontational demeanor... and yes, combined with his skin tone...can help swingmuch of the black vote.
The MFM would be hard-pressed for ways to attack him.
Barbour is already being portrayed in the MFM as the typical southern, bigoted redneck. The black vote would be 99.99% against him, and the NE republican set would be embarrassed by him.
Palin is damaged goods., IMHO, mostly because of the non-stop MFM war against her. Unfortunately many on our side are very susceptible to propaganda. And no..I am not canonizing Palin, nor trying to turn her into a martyr. There are valid arguments of what many people see as her faults...but much of the perception of her is being shaped by outside efforts.
I saw something interesting this morning in The Prowler in the American spectator regarding the selection of Jay Carney to succeed Gibbs. Their source said that Carney made his case to Obama and Daley by citing his ability tocontrol the MFM coverage of Biden's gaffes through his connections in the media.
Given that, now don't you suppose that there could also have been behind-the-scenes activity between the WH and the MFM in the war against Palin.

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 08:38 AM (AnTyA)

119 Surrender to the cult. We have you surrounded. And we Hate government healthcare. IYKWIM

Posted by: Palinbot # 3,523,765 at January 28, 2011 08:38 AM (wL5Mf)

120 i would totally vote for bolton.......but i think that he would be banned from running because his stash drips vitriolic rhetoric......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 08:38 AM (eOXTH)

121 I'll never vote for Obama. Ever.
However, Newt, Hucky or Ineffectual Idiottm Ron Paul wouldforce me to stay home.


That's sums it up for me too..
(although, Paul is one of the few people who I think would actually repeal ObamaCare rather than "Republican" fix it.)

Posted by: Dave C at January 28, 2011 08:38 AM (fYmYB)

122 c'mon people...sarah says what we all say........the sotu? wtf was that?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 08:39 AM (eOXTH)

123 Posted by: Mark in Spokane at January 28, 2011 08:36 AM (A2FwP)

This is an excellent point. One of Reagan's greatest attributes was his ability to handle whatever was thrown at him -- with aplomb and humor. Palin isn't Reagan, and probably never will even approach his stature, but she does have that tenaciousness and fearlessness that makes for a very impressive persona.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:39 AM (LH6ir)

124 You speak as an authority on Haitian matters?
As a matter of fact, yes. Careful, Maverick--you never know who is around here. You should know that by now after years of trolls being decapitated here for ignorance. So if you want to debate who is responsible for Haiti and how Baby Doc fits into that equation, go ahead, try me.
You find no fault with authoritarianism so long as it smiles and shares your party affiliation.
I find no fault with legal wiretaps to catch terrorists. Care to prove otherwise?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:40 AM (B+qrE)

125 I think Newt is the most electable
I think your internets card is revoked

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 08:40 AM (wuv1c)

126 The MFM would be hard-pressed for ways to attack him.
Barbour is already being portrayed in the MFM as the typical
southern, bigoted redneck. The black vote would be 99.99% against him,
and the NE republican set would be embarrassed by him.
Palin is damaged goods., IMHO, mostly because of the non-stop MFM war
against her. Unfortunately many on our side are very susceptible to
propaganda. And no..I am not canonizing Palin, nor trying to turn her
into a martyr. There are valid arguments of what many people see as her
faults...but much of the perception of her is being shaped by outside
efforts.Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 08:38 AM (AnTyA)


I too voted for Herman Cain for the exact reasons you specified. Great minds think alike.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 28, 2011 08:40 AM (/G5LI)

127 120 i would totally vote for bolton.......but i think that he would be banned from running because his stash drips vitriolic rhetoric......
I would totally not vote for Bolton. Not yet, anyway. While I'm sure his election to the presidency would be followed by the immediate pacification of every enemy we have, and a sudden and unexplained rise in the number of US-supplied citizen rebellions in tinpot-dictator countries, he's a domestic policy cipher. I have no idea how he'd allocate money to anything except defense. I have no idea what judges he'd pick or policies he'd advocate.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:42 AM (IH3P2)

128 Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for President http://t.co/ovZ8DUl

Posted by: MoJoTee at January 28, 2011 08:42 AM (uGBn8)

129 Palin is damaged goods., IMHO, mostly because of the non-stop MFM war
against her. Unfortunately many on our side are very susceptible to
propaganda. And no..I am not canonizing Palin, nor trying to turn her
into a martyr. There are valid arguments of what many people see as her
faults...but much of the perception of her is being shaped by outside
efforts.

As much as I like Palin, I'm inclined to agree with you on that..

If she did run, imagine the press she would generate? Just look at what happened in Tucson with something she had absolutely no involvement in..

I guess if you want a war with the MFM with the Presidency at stake, Palin would be the way to go..

Posted by: Dave C at January 28, 2011 08:42 AM (fYmYB)

130 "Palin is damaged goods."
---
Don't think of it as damaged goods. She is being turned into teflon by the mfm.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (c5RQr)

131 LOL, I predict this thread will go all day and be fun until a few bomb throwers show up (and you all know who they are).

Then it will turn into a flame war.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (M9Ie6)

132 Herman Cain.

Because, I think we are in for a shitload of trouble, no matter who is President and I think that he could make himself heard even by those who are are, by nature, averse to paying fucking attention.

Would it rawk to see Herman Cain debate Obama?

Hellz, yeah!

Would it be even better to hear some bad news delivered by him, in an address from the Oval office?

No. Not really. It would suck. It always sucks.

Still...

I could see this guy as President!

(Have no clue how he would get nominated but that's a different question.)

I guess I don't have as much invested in "seeing lefties heads explode!" as I should...

Honestly, I don't feel like I have time for that shit! I am very worried. For all of us.














Posted by: Deety finds Presidents Perplexing at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (Jb3+B)

133 I think the NorthEastern Republicans would Orgasm themselves voting for a Black man for President.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (/G5LI)

134 Palin because she is not afraid to state the
conservative point of view. I don't give a damn if the mfm tells me she
is unelectable, that we need another rino candidate.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 07:44 AM (w7Lv+)
This; plus I'm tired of voting for fuckheads that I can barely stand the stench of that Repukes like Rove tell me are good.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (olKiY)

135 Cain is the right 100%!

Posted by: MoJoTee at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (uGBn8)

136 I am very concerned that this Republican Party caucus doesn't support the true democratic virtues that make us stronger and bring us together as a nation.

Who will have the courage to challenge the hideous pseudo-science of evolution and psychiatry, as well as give us democracy good and hard about the things most important to us - like pornography, high taxes on sugar and sodium, and circuses?

I'm going to have to go with an Obama/Huckabee ticket. You fascists drove me to it.

Posted by: Concerned Christian Conservative at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (psCad)

137 But Palin is disliked by a majority of her own party. Pretty sure we read that somewhere. .....

Posted by: Got the early shift for Ace at January 28, 2011 08:43 AM (wL5Mf)

138 Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:40 AM (B+qrE)

Haiti has been "free" for 210 years. The Haitians, and the Haitians alone are responsible for their deplorable condition.

They did best when the United States Marine Corps was in charge (of course most countries would do well with the Marines in charge).

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:44 AM (LH6ir)

139 >>And that "my friends" also goes for the bogus electability issue. Unless a candidate is someone like Adolf Hitler "electability" shouldn't even be in your decision cycle. That is the major damn reason we wound up with asshole McCain.

No. The reason we wound up with McCain is because of the nature of our primaries. Unless you live in Iowa, NH, SC and potentially FL, it doesn't matter who you like.

Last cycle, the intertubes were alive with the sound of Fred!, and he bombed miserably. Huck jumped into the race and took the Christian conservative vote in Iowa and Fred was dead. The race was then between Romney and McCain and with Huck playing the spoiler to Romney for the conservative vote McCain took the race. The collusion between Huck and McCain was no more clear than in W. Va. where the supporters of the biggest squish, McCain, threw their support to Huck, the so called Christian conservative, and Romney was done. So I don't put too much stake in the labels people give to certain candidates. It usually comes down to politics.

This will be a lot more meaningful when we actually know who is running and what their organization looks like and what the state of the economy is at the start of the race.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2011 08:44 AM (TMB3S)

140 Yeah, put the 'Stache' up there and let's recalculate.

Posted by: Navin R Johnson at January 28, 2011 08:44 AM (HpT9p)

141 I partially agree with commenter #2, Truman North.

The only goddamn American with goddamn balls - Sarah Palin.


Posted by: centralcal at January 28, 2011 08:45 AM (OJmT0)

142 Palin.

In case no one noticed, she was the only one who had the courage to defend herself and most importantly, free speech and talk radio and tea party conservatives, while all the rest of these guys were hiding in their offices, except for Tim Pawlenty, who used a milquetoast attack on her.

My criteria is this: who will stand up to the Jihadists, Putin, and Hu?

On this list, Guiliani is a known poor campaigner, so he is out. Cain sounds promising, but I don't know about him on anything other than economics.

The rest of these guys may be good on economics but they have demonstrated, by their hiding from the press and allowing Palin to be stabbed by the serial killer media, that they have ZERO courage. If you cannot stand up to Rick Klein and Chuck Todd, why should you get my vote for running the country?

So, since you didn't put Bolton on here, I didn't have a difficult choice. Palin.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the Iranians are overthrowing governments and we may see a Caliphate, stretching from Tunisia to Iran, within 6 months?


Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2011 08:47 AM (Fo83G)

143 Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:40 AM (B+qrE)

I would love to hear your take on Haiti, maybe I would learn something I dont' already know. Sometimes I wish that Ace would have posters, who really do know their stuff do guest posts about he subject they are really well versed in.

I really want to know more about the situation in Egypt and Tunisia. I want to know why the BO administration isn't rising up to help the people win their democracy. There has to be a good and legitimate reason.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 08:48 AM (p302b)

144 Loved Fred Thompson. If he hadn't acted like the nomination was a coronation to which he was entitled and actually RAN for the nomination, he would now be President instead of the moron currently pretending to be.
Fred came in too late and too shallow. The candidates already had supporters by the time Fred announced. But Fred would have been the best possible choice of all available choices.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 28, 2011 08:48 AM (/G5LI)

145 This is an excellent point. One of Reagan's greatest attributes was his ability to handle whatever was thrown at him -- with aplomb and humor. Palin isn't Reagan, and probably never will even approach his stature, but she does have that tenaciousness and fearlessness that makes for a very impressive persona.
That is great analysis. I've been thinking about it for a while. Reagan would smile and defuse them with a joke and the reporter would realize they looked like an ass. I've been thinking about the back and forths between Sam Donaldson and Reagan and how Reagan always made Sam look like a fool.
Now people might argue that the media is much more hyperpartisan than was Reagan was president, and they would be right, but they are leaving out the convenient fact that there was no conservative media back then. Rush was just starting out on the radio and a couple of newspapers had conservative columnists like William Safire.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 08:48 AM (wuv1c)

146 Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2011 08:47 AM (Fo83G)

And if that happens we will see a joint Israeli-Jordanian expedition into Tehran, backed by air cover from Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:49 AM (LH6ir)

147 They did best when the United States Marine Corps was in charge (of course most countries would do well with the Marines in charge).
I, and the vast majority of the Haitians that I know, agree.
Long-term, venal dictatorships like the Duvaliers' (plural)leave behind a particular legacy of poverty and non-existent institutions. It's why so many remain basket cases for so long after the manskips town. Haiti, Congo, the whole swath of western Africa come to mind. Of course, the lefty policies in places like Zimbabwe and Cuba are just as bad.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (B+qrE)

148 heck you haven't even heard if Sarah Palin wants the presidency

Don't play deaf to "I'd run!" Palin.

Instincts aside, Palin has no poker face, and successful international politics require that degree of self control and insight honed from years of intense study and direct experience. But then, that's what consultant emissaries are for.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (H+LJc)

149 None of the above, because they are not ALLEN WEST who is the best person for the job as the only person in public office who clearly understands the threat that islamic supremacism presents to our very existence and isn't afraid to speak openly about it.

Posted by: Zilla at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (T8pPt)

150 The old GOP approach to "it's canidates X's turn" is just plain silly. Let's close the GOP primaries and lets's stop letting the MSM and the Left choose our nominees.

As for me I am going to support Gov. Palin. I believe she is electable and if she did win it would be just too much fun watching the talking heads on the left have to explain the loss to "That Woman"!

Posted by: Robbsal at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (RoGcb)

151

Face it -- in order to WIN THE ELECTION you have to WIN THE INDEPENDENT VOTE.

Bolton, Palin, Perry, Ryan etc. can't win that demographic.

Huckabee is a non-threatening Republican, Romney has the hair and business chops -- together they could easily win both the moderate/independent and the evangelical/socon demographics. If the hard core Republicans who sat home in 2006 voted, instead of throwing a temper tantrum, the ticket would be a sure winner.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 08:51 AM (7+pP9)

152 Well remember they took Guiliani down first, then Romney quit, the Fred got in, but
Huck covered McCain's right flank, and then of course, there was Ron Paul!, that's how we got McCain, someone none of us, wanted. Because we remembered the last time he ran in 2000, when the press was his 'base'

Posted by: justin cord at January 28, 2011 08:51 AM (2C3OH)

153 I like 'Ol Big Boy.

Elections are a popularity contest, especially for independents, the stupidest creatures to draw breath on this planet.

Obama became instantly popular because of his high melanin content and because he didn't get tagged with saying anything really stupid.

Calm down, Morons. I know he said lots of stupid things. They just got zero airplay outside the right wing echo chamber.

The reason I like Christie is that he's Conservative Enough.

Second, he is a fucking soundbite MACHINE. Easily remembered positions, retorts, witticisms and bon mots are what's needed to resonate in the empty cavity between the ears of those who self-identify as Independents.

Outside of Palin, who can remember a single thing any of the rest of the hopefuls have said?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 08:51 AM (xmuv/)

154 curious...i'm confused about egypt and tunisia...i've been reading articles on both but none get to the heart of the matter.....i'm praying for Israel......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 08:51 AM (eOXTH)

155 Huckabee is a non-threatening Republican
Define that, please. Because he terrifies me.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:52 AM (B+qrE)

156 I would love to hear your take on Haiti, maybe I would learn something I dont' already know. Sometimes I wish that Ace would have posters, who really do know their stuff do guest posts about he subject they are really well versed in. I really want to know more about the situation in Egypt and Tunisia. I want to know why the BO administration isn't rising up to help the people win their democracy. There has to be a good and legitimate reason

In 1979 in Iran there were pro democracy protestors. We did nothing to help the Shah, an ally of ours who was pro-israel, pro-womens rights, but a bit of a kleptocrat. By 1980 Iran had a theocratic oligarchy.
"Democracy movements" don't always lead to democracy, especially in the middle east. It's one of those be careful what you wish for thing. Sometimes when given the right to vote, you may just find out that they don't want democracy, but a chance to choose their own new type of dictatorship.
It's possible democracy would work in Egypt, however the biggest political power right now, The Muslim Brotherhood(who i think is technically at war with America), might very well come to power.
Democracy isn't always a good thing, especially int he hands of people who aren't capable of making it work, think california

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 08:52 AM (wuv1c)

157 I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination in the general (although I would have to start some pretty strong drinking if it's Huckabee). But as of right now, with Pence out, my choice is Herman Cain. I like his business experience and how successful he's been. He's also a very good speaker and just makes sense. He's very good at putting issues into plain language, which a lot of people are going to need to hear. And his values line up with mine pretty well.

I love, love, love Sarah. But honestly, I'm so tired of having to defend her. Just this morning, my husband (who is conservative) made some comment about her being a well-meaning idiot. When I asked why, he'd apparently been reading somewhere and saw some blurb on her commenting about Obama's "Sputnik moment". And wherever he read the comments, they apparently yanked it way out of context and made her appear like an idiot. So he believed it. Even knowing how bad the MFM treats her.

Hubby's no dummy either. Just lazy when it comes to politics. And that's the problem. People are lazy about this stuff. Which is why Palin is so toxic. A huge swath of pele, who should know better, actually believe a lot of the junk said about her. And after two straight years of it, I'm just worn out.

Posted by: Mandy P. at January 28, 2011 08:52 AM (vGmv/)

158 I went with the Snowbilly from that list, but there are a lot of names on my list above her.

Posted by: Follower of Cthulhu at January 28, 2011 08:53 AM (F/4zf)

159 149
None of the above, because they are not ALLEN WEST who is the best
person for the job as the only person in public office who clearly
understands the threat that islamic supremacism presents to our very
existence and isn't afraid to speak openly about it.


Posted by: Zilla at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (T8pPt)

Oh, I forgot about him. Can I change my vote?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 28, 2011 08:53 AM (/G5LI)

160 I'm not convinced any of the people on this list can beat the President, partially because of previous stumbles and partially because of the math.

I don't think I trust newspaper math Gabe. Obama won a lot of normally red States in the South along with a couple of key swing States that had previously gone to Bush, those being OH and FL.

He will NOT win either of those States in 2012 if things hold up as they did in 2010. That is assuming that the base in those States do not stay at home in droves because we nominate another McCain.

That is one thing that 2010 showed us more than anything else. Even when the Repub base turns out well in Red States, the Dems, and in particular, the unions, will bring the turnout in the Blue States.

But as long as the base turns out in 2012, Obama will go down hard.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 08:53 AM (M9Ie6)

161 mandy p

sorry they got to your husband

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 08:53 AM (eOXTH)

162 87

+1

The liberal media in Texas have been bouncing armor piercing rounds off of Gov. Perry for years without any discernible effect. He solidly kicked Nosferatu's ass in the last gubernatorial election despite the best efforts of the MFM. Yes Bolton would make a great VP.

Since Rainbows and Unicorns aren't going to keep California out of default through '12 - with an economic disaster in that state the likes of which the nation has never seen - the reality of the suicidal folly which is liberalism can be ground into everyone's faces.We can't let the Dhims paint the California fiasco as a failure of Capitalism - which of course it isn't. We have to be ready to show people how liberalism owns that complete and entire disaster. If we do all of that then Obamao goes down in flames; one and done.

Posted by: An Observation at January 28, 2011 08:54 AM (ylhEn)

163 Also,
the following people will not win the primary under any circumstances
Giuliani
Gingrich
Thune
Paul

So they shouldn't even run.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 08:54 AM (wuv1c)

164 My criteria is this: who will stand up to the Jihadists, Putin, and Hu?
Do you honestly think that she'll be able to stand up to anybody when the domestic media's busy destroying her? They won't stop if she wins the presidency. You must know that. It will be four solid years of Palin hatred, and the media will not stop until "Palin" becomes a curse word.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:54 AM (IH3P2)

165 I was hoping for Pence, but since he's not running, my choices from the list are either Palin or Daniels; Palin because she fights, Daniels because he's mostly excellent when it comes to economics. They both come with their individual problems, but more study and good VP nominees respectively might help with that.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 08:56 AM (sZ+lP)

166 "Instincts aside, Palin has no poker face, and successful
international politics require that degree of self control and insight
honed from years of intense study and direct experience. But then,
that's what consultant emissaries are for."
Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (H+LJc)

Huh?

Ronald Reagan had zero foreign policy experience, yet he destroyed the most evil dictatorship in history. Bush senior had tremendous experience, and managed to fuck up the first Iraq war, setting the stage for something much worse.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 08:56 AM (LH6ir)

167 Second, he is a fucking soundbite MACHINE. Easily
remembered positions, retorts, witticisms and bon mots are what's needed
to resonate in the empty cavity between the ears of those who
self-identify as Independents.



Outside of Palin, who can remember a single thing any of the rest of the hopefuls have said?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 08:51 AM (xmuv/)

I like Cristie on the Fiscal Issues, but I think he would kill the party on the Social issues.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 28, 2011 08:56 AM (/G5LI)

168 Chris Christie. The man is running radio ads in Illinois essentially bitch slapping Illinois politicians for raising taxes and telling Illinois businesses to move to New Jersey. Itsent that brainless douche Quinn into a hissy fit. That alone would get my vote

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 28, 2011 08:56 AM (1Jaio)

169 Daniels/Cain is the ticket that could knock the Joker off his throne. Daniels has proven you can fix the government and made Indiana work. Cain understands business and money.

Love Palin's fire, but she will never win the educated women's vote (independents), so is unelectable. She could best help the party by renewing her show and raising money to support conservative candidates that are electable. She can move policy in the right direction with support, but there are way too many people that will refuse to vote for her come hell or high water.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at January 28, 2011 08:57 AM (VW9Wz)

170 How about a Palin/Bolton ticket? I'd be SO down with that jive. Actually, any combination of Palin, Bolton, Daniels, and Cain would make me pretty damn happy.
I didn't pick Palin in my earlier post just b/c I like Cain so much, but she truly is the closest to Reagan in this list, IMHO. She says what needs to be said in clear language, and she has a "friendly neighbor" demeanor that makes her naturally likeable. The fact that she also supports and opposes the same things as me is the icing on the cake. We need someone strong and unequivocal to drag us out of this Obamafied swamp, just like we needed someone strong and unequivocal to drag us out of the malaise days of Jimmy Carter. Of all the candidates represented in that list, Palin seems the strongest choice.
Also, how SWEET would it be to have a strong female president who could scare the shit out of the militant muzzies in the Mid-East? And she could give Putin a run for his money in demonstrating how to be a tough leader. Putin shot a whale? Heh, Palin could go out there,net a giant squid, and club it to death with a caribou's antler.

Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 08:58 AM (4df7R)

171 What a horribly depressing poll. We're so boned.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 08:58 AM (pLTLS)

172 Democracy isn't always a good thing, especially int he hands of people who aren't capable of making it work, think california

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 08:52 AM (wuv1c)

The historians among us are aware the Founders DETESTED Democracy. They never expected the country to be guided by what they regarded as the common rabble. In 1789, Voters had to own land. The reasoning was that only those people with a stake in the outcome of the community and the nation should guide it's path.
To the founders, Democracy was the opposite extreme of Monarchy. One of them said ( I forget who) "I'd rather have one king 10,000 miles away, then 10,000 kings 1 mile away."
We were founded a Democratic Republic. The reason we are in such trouble now is because we allowed it to be evolved into a Democracy.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 28, 2011 09:00 AM (/G5LI)

173 Ryan/Bolton 2012

Why? Because we need a no nonsense-no bull shit team. Enough with the mumble jumble platitudes and blowing smoke up our collective arses.

Posted by: kawfytawk at January 28, 2011 09:00 AM (lFt0D)

174 Do you honestly think that she'll be able to stand up to anybody when the domestic media's busy destroying her? They won't stop if she wins the presidency. You must know that. It will be four solid years of Palin hatred, and the media will not stop until "Palin" becomes a curse word.
Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 08:54 AM (IH3P2)
Lou, "Palin" is already a curse word. In case you haven't noticed, the media has been excoriating her daily for the past two years. We already know they hate her. Frankly, that gives her a hell of a lot more cred in my book.
It will be four solid years of Palin hatred
We had close to eight solid years of Bush hatred. I think we can handle it.

Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 09:00 AM (4df7R)

175
Huckabee is a non-threatening Republican, Romney has the hair and business chops -- together they could easily win both the moderate/independent and the evangelical/socon demographics. If the hard core Republicans who sat home in 2006 voted, instead of throwing a temper tantrum, the ticket would be a sure winner.
---------------------
hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahhahahahAHAHAHAHAH.
Please, as soon as the media starts digging into those idiots it's done. Huckabee has two willie hortons, raised taxes and spending, tried to ban coke in his own state, his son tortured a dog at summer camp I believe and he thinks the world is 6000 years old. Romney thinks he is invincible but will be beat like a rented mule come debate time. Sarah Palin is battle tested and teflon. She is ready.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 09:01 AM (c5RQr)

176 Instincts aside, Palin has no poker face, and successful international politics require that degree of self control and insight honed from years of intense study and direct experience.
Like, for instance, BOB BARR!!!! WHOOOO!!!!! Consistency apparently not required today.

Success in foreign policy requires a vision consistent with American values andthe courage to act on it.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:01 AM (B+qrE)

177 Woohoo
Go chick with the hot legs!!!

Posted by: Ncj the non-terrorist cabbie at January 28, 2011 09:02 AM (IPg4u)

178 Vim Toot!

Stop that.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 09:02 AM (xmuv/)

179 I think the people who are in love with Christie need to consider two things.
Would he name a conservative supreme court justice if given the chance? I don't think so. And unlike Bush who dropped Myers after a conservative uproar, I don't think Christie would give a shit what conservatives thought. He will do what he wants, that his mentallity
Would he go for some form of gun control. People overlook the fact he isn't friendly to gun owners.
I like christie's videos online, but I'm not 100% sold on him

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:03 AM (wuv1c)

180 From this list ? Sarah Palin.

Honestly tho can we see who is running before we decide who to vote for? I am not even sure Gov. Palin will run and I am sure about half the guys on that list are not running.

Sarah Palin running for President would be the most interesting political theater the media could ask for.

Posted by: Vrond at January 28, 2011 09:03 AM (SFsJU)

181 So, who the fark is herman Cain?

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 09:03 AM (OlN4e)

182 None of the above? Honestly, they're all way too damaged goods.

And if the RNC has it's way and gets Romney nominated because it's "his turn" *facepalm.*

Posted by: RangerSG at January 28, 2011 09:03 AM (/lltO)

183 T-Paw. Hey, he's a good guy. He was a good governor. I think he'd be a good president. And good is much better than what we currently have.

Posted by: Jorge at January 28, 2011 09:04 AM (Ibc8X)

184 Love Palin's fire, but she will never win the educated women's vote
I'm an educated women, and my sister's working on a Ph.D., and we'd both vote for Palin in a heartbeat. Especially if it's Palin vs. some milquetoast RINO like Romney or Huckabee.

Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 09:04 AM (4df7R)

185 I see the people around here who salivate about Palin and it makes weep for the future of the Republic. Do you people really want four more years of Obama and to guarantee the permanence of ObamaCare? Is it worth that much to you? Palin, if nominated, would literally top out at around 43% of the vote. It would be an LBJ/Goldwater-esque blowout, but with none of the meager upside of that (i.e. at least Goldwater was a man of serious intellectual capacity and principle).

Palin = suicide. And I'm not ready to give up on America yet.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:04 AM (NjYDy)

186 You're right, Gabe. If anyone on that list is the nominee, we are cornholed for another four years, at least.

Posted by: SOYLENT GREEN at January 28, 2011 09:04 AM (M/WbE)

187 Love Palin's fire, but she will never win the educated women's vote (independents), so is unelectable.
-----
?????????
That vote has also went Dem. You have to be kidding, I got to go now but I hope some of the poster here post with more sense.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 09:04 AM (c5RQr)

188 161 mandy p

sorry they got to your husband
Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 08:53 AM (eOXTH)

Thanks. It's frustrating. I probably pissed him off, too. Because I'm NOT lazy about politics, so as soon as he left for work I looked it all up and emailed him to tell him he was being stupid. Although I did try to say it a little more gently than that. I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell people, hubby included, that you can't believe what the MFM says about conservatives. That's quadruple for Palin.

Posted by: Mandy P. at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (vGmv/)

189 I like Cristie on the Fiscal Issues, but I think he would kill the party on the Social issues.
I would be comfortable if he pressed hard with the idea that those issues are not federal government issues, but properly the responsibility of the state government to figure out. That said, I would rather have Christie as the governer of New Jersey, giving us some wins on fiscal issues and forcing the Dems to fight in a blue state.
The bigger problem is that we need to build a better apparatus to win victories at the state level, instead of trying to find the second coming of Reagan to win the Presidency.

Posted by: Alex at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (J2ejK)

190 Cain is out of Georgia and currently has a local radio show. A real good, smart businessman anda self-made millionaire/restauranteer.
http://tinyurl.com/29xmy5g

Posted by: JDW at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (uw+0A)

191 Why do I have the impression that the vast majority of people who dis Mitt Romney know him from MA healthcare, and nothing else?

He is by far the strongest candidate out there for winning a general election. Fairly or unfairly, he doesn't frighten non-leftist Democrats, or independents. He is solidy conservative on economic and fiscal matters, literate andarguably hawkish on foreign policy, and is just plain smart. And nice. If he can get through the Primaries, he can win.

What's the difference between those who are "Conservative," and those who are "Center-Right"? Issues play a part, but I suspect most of the difference is your perception of the person's "political culture." To put it another way, can you name even one issue on which you can say with reasonable certainty that a President Romney and a President Palin would govern differently?

Posted by: ParisParamus at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (6XpfN)

192 Also, i've been hearing a lot about Cain, but I've never really seen him on tv or anywhere else for that matter. Is he as good as people are claiming, or are we just grasping at straws?

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (wuv1c)

193 but I think his record of personal succerss, intelligence, strong
personality, and non-confrontational demeanor... and yes, combined with
his skin tone...can help swingmuch of the black vote.

Sorry beedubya.

I hate to disagree but 90+% of the "black vote" is going to go to Obama the Democrat. Just like last time. No matter what.

Will they be as "energized" as they were in 2008?

Probably not.

Unless something really crazy happens like the Republicans electing a black man.

"How dare they!"

I like Herman Cain for a lot of reasons but black out-reach in 2012, is not at all one of them!


Posted by: Deety finds Presidents Perplexing at January 28, 2011 09:06 AM (Jb3+B)

194 Herman Cain.
Because he's a self-made man, very successful in business, he's not a f%^$% policitician, and he doesn't need the job.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 28, 2011 09:06 AM (JxMoP)

195
Okay, I'm done trolling. Huckabee/Romney would be a nightmare.

I just wanted to make the point that, using talking head logic, you make a coherent argument for nominating a dog turd for president.

Which, unfortunately, is what we did in 2008.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 09:06 AM (7+pP9)

196 jeff b.


palin for the country would save it...palin for your personal relationships would be a living hell....i'm more concerned for the country.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (eOXTH)

197 Sarah, because it makes Ace cry.

Posted by: countrydoc at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (131HS)

198 #164 Do you think that ANY Republican will get a pass on the slings and arrows of the press? Might I remind you that their former darling, John McCain, was actively torpedoed once he got the nomination.

George Bush managed to fight a war on terror and deal with Putin and Hu without giving in, even though he was demonized as much as Palin.

I refuse to choose a president based on who I think the media will like, nor will I give up on supporting Palin because I am tired.

I defended George Bush for EIGHT YEARS from the more outrageous charges, and I am not tired, and I will not FALTER OR FAIL.

How many of you people get on Twitter and watch what the media says to each other? How many of you do ANYTHING other than come here and bash all of the GOP candidates.

What in the heck is this doom and gloom? ANY of those candidates listed above, even the ones whom I detest, like Huckabee and Gingrich, would be FAR better than what we have. If you don't like Palin, well, fine. Pick someone else and support them, and let's have a damn election! Then whoever wins (and quite frankly, it might not be Palin) should get our support and NO armchair quarterbacking until after the general election!

In Superbowl terms, are some of you not going to root for Green Bay because Favre is no longer there? Are you going to take a pass on the Steelers because they don't do plays the way you want?

Bah. I am going to make myself another cup of coffee and fume to myself.

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (Fo83G)

199 From that list, I have to go with Sarah, just to watch liberal heads explode.

Cain has a good chance IF he can get his message out.

I'd vote for Giuliani in a heartbeat if he actually campaigns outside of Florida.

The big thing is not to let the MFM choose our candidate for us (ie McCain).

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (QV82F)

200 ParisParamus,
I voted for him in the poll. Out of the options given, he is the most likely to beat Obama. (In my opinion).
I think he did what he had to do to get elected in the most liberal state in the union.
I don't think he's naturally inclined to be as moderate as he was as governor of Massachusetts.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (wuv1c)

201 On the Democracy/Republican Government score in the Middle East (which really is off topic but...):

That area has never had such of a government outside of Israel. That form of government is incapable with Islam and Sharia law. We have forcibly installed it in Iraq but we allowed Sharia to be installed in the Constitution which will lead to a Theocracy there as soon as we leave.

Democratic leaning government can not survive the two biggest threats there are and this is world wide:

1. Islam in large portions of the Middle and Far East
2. Bread and circuses/socialism in the West where votes are bought by "freebies" and voters with no "stake in the system".

In addition to those threats, to a lesser extent we have voting fraud.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (M9Ie6)

202 Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 08:50 AM (B+qrE)

Add in a French or Spanish colonial history and that is a recipe for failure. The west has thrown billions of dollars at Haiti, and the result is...nothing. No progress at all. We have enriched dictators and politicians and perhaps the top 1% of their society, at the expense of the rest of the country.

The answer is to leave them alone, or send in the Marines.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 09:09 AM (LH6ir)

203 OT: I can't believe it's been 25 years today since the shuttle disaster. Reagan's Shuttle address:

http://tinyurl.com/6lnyus

Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 09:10 AM (VuLos)

204 When given the option, I always vote for titties.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at January 28, 2011 09:10 AM (bZ8J6)

205 Mrs. President. Would you like to bomb Iran? You betcha!


Posted by: Dave at January 28, 2011 09:11 AM (dxXO1)

206 I don't know.And I won't knowuntil I hear from Meghan McCain and my magic 8-ball.

Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at January 28, 2011 09:11 AM (HaYO4)

207 From what I've heard of Tim Pawlenty over at Powerline, he's become my first choice. Still don't know a whole lot about him, honestly, but he comes from a good swing state, and I've heard he's worked a fairly conservative agenda with a state legislature dominated by liberals.
Palin has become so polarizing that I doubt she has a chance. The media has effectively made her anathema to swing voters IMO.
Huckabee, Romney and crew are all also-rans. They're not stunningly conservative to begin with and would also have problems firing up the base. Romney especially shouldn't run due to his connection MassCare. Constant comparisons would be drawn between it and Obamacare that would make him look like a hardcore flip-flopper.
Who the hell is Herman Cain?

Posted by: Oilfield Dude at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (+qHxi)

208 Ha. I freeped the pol for Sarah.

Posted by: Joe Miller at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (CHrmZ)

209 Is he as good as people are claiming, or are we just grasping at straws?

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (wuv1c)
Right now his main claim to fame is a talk radio show syndicated out of WSB in Atlanta. He is also the former CEO of Godfather's pizza.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (M9Ie6)

210 Thomas Sowell. Brilliant conservative who tear barky apart in debates. He's what we need,strong constitutionalist and on the right side concerning economics.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (6yyVB)

211 I like Herman Cain a lot, but people who are pushing him for President are, to put it politely, being unrealistic. Nobody -- nobody -- without SOME sort of experience in government can be qualified for the job of President. Being CEO is a good quality, no doubt, and Cain would make a great senator or congressman (or governor, as a first step) but to suggest he leapfrog all the way to the most important political position on the planet without a single iota of experience? C'mon, I expect better from people on this site. You're not making a serious choice, you're just masturbating. Fappity fappity fappity.

It's not a question of "Cain can't win" (although he can't, for a ton of reasons). The fact of the matter is that he would be horribly unqualified for the job. I will not vote for a guy who looks nice and talks nice into my ear, telling me the right things. I need to see a record IN GOVERNMENT. Because these guys ain't running for the job of Conservative Talk Show Host or Cheerleader. They have to be legislative negotiators, spearhead American diplomacy, set parameters for administrative agencies and judicial appointments, etc...you can't do this shit by instinct. (I think that's where people around here are getting it wrong -- a lot of you seem to think that, hey, all you really need ARE the "right instincts" or "right principles." Then -- delegate! Then - ???? Then - PROFIT!)

Daniels is really the only good answer. Pawlenty behind him. Gotta be someone with executive experience.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (NjYDy)

212 Thomas Sowell. Brilliant conservative who tear
barky apart in debates. He's what we need,strong constitutionalist and
on the right side concerning economics.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (6yyVB)
While I'd crawl over broken glass and vote for him in a heartbeat, he has NO desire to be in politics and he's in his 70's.

Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 09:13 AM (VuLos)

213 OK, I voted for Daniels (but could as easily have chosen Pawlenty) because...

1. They're 100 percent correct on The Issue of the first half of this century: the debt, the size of government.

AND:

2. As Krauthammer said yesterday, their personality would not stand in the way of their message during the election.

In other words: No to Sarah, I'm afraid. She's too polarizing - nominating her would wake up the left and make them cling to Obama even harder than they did in 2008. She's been overexposed, her TV show/s turn me off, Bristol and her boyfriend and the illegitimate kid turn me off, her high-pitched squeal turns me off, and she has a knack for always using a phrase or expression that becomes the center of controversy, messing up her message.

And after all these years now, she still hasn't been able to handle a meeting on TV with even a vacuous airhead like Katie Couric's Colon. I mean - the woman hide out on Sean Hannity's show. How would she fare after she becomes the nominee? Just show up on Hannity and Facebook? Seems to me that is the Big Tip Off she can't handle the heat in the kitchen... she refuses to even go into the kitchen.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:14 AM (tJjm/)

214 Posted by: JDW at January 28, 2011 09:05 AM (uw+0A)
Pretty impressive.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 09:15 AM (OlN4e)

215 Oh wow, I just tuned into Glenn Beck ...I didn't know Beck had it in him..he is trouncing, trouncing Chris Matthews over the Michelle Bachman "balloon head" comment...

I mean Beck is amazing....I had no idea he could tear Matthews apart like he was red meat and beck was the rabid dog

You go Glenn Beck....

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:15 AM (p302b)

216 Ghost/Atwater,

Those were the exact same "positives" Ross Perot brought to the race with Clinton and Booosh.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 09:15 AM (OW0nw)

217 the qualifications for President are:


Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 09:15 AM (eOXTH)

218 Palin/West

Posted by: TC at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (BAtLQ)

219 From that list, I have to go with Sarah, just to watch liberal heads explode.

Glad to see that people are exercising critical thinking here. Okay, so liberal heads explode. But what do you do about the fact that swing voters' heads would explode too? And many Republicans (something on the order of 30%, including nearly every major fundraiser) would also explode? That leaves you with a narrow slice of the population that likes her, and no money outside of piddling small donations. That equals Nixon/McGovern -- in reverse.

Glad to see you thought this through.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (NjYDy)

220 Help us, Sarah-wan, you're our only hope!

Posted by: american princess at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (0AkWH)

221 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (NjYDy)

Jeff,

I understand your point, but running a large corporation requires exactly those decisions. I agree about Cain being unelectable, but his skill set is not worthless. On the contrary, a strong corporate manager would do wonders for the bloated bureaucracy that is our government.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (LH6ir)

222 BTW, just to be clear; fuck Charles Krauthammer.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (OlN4e)

223 Wow. Based on this poll, we're stuck w/ Cap'n Zero for another 4. In case some of you didn't know, the point is to nominate the one who can win.

Posted by: Mephistefales at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (NmOcw)

224 I'm looking for either a Palin/Cain or Cain/Palin ticket, to be honest. I think those two together would be a dang good team. Plus from a purely media hatred standpoint, what do you have? A woman and a black man; any over the top attacks are going to eventually become racist or misogynist in nature. I'd just love watching the media try to do a delicate tapdance to cover that without exposing their true colors. Would be great.

Posted by: Danny at January 28, 2011 07:48 AM (oLvBm)


This. For that reason. For some reason, watching monkeys fling poo never gets old.

Posted by: Abiss at January 28, 2011 09:17 AM (1ilyW)

225 Posted by: TC at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (BAtLQ)

Newsletter?


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 09:17 AM (LH6ir)

226 "218
Palin/West"

i like the way you think

Posted by: elspeth at January 28, 2011 09:17 AM (0AkWH)

227 Thomas Sowell. Brilliant conservative who tear barky apart in debates. He's what we need,strong constitutionalist and on the right side concerning economics.
Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 28, 2011 09:12 AM (6yyVB)
While I'd crawl over broken glass and vote for him in a heartbeat, he has NO desire to be in politics and he's in his 70's.
Me too, but sure would love to see him debatethe socialist in chief.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 28, 2011 09:17 AM (6yyVB)

228 One thing to bear in mind with respect to Cain is that I don't think we've ever had someone without prior political experience win the presidency. At least, not in the 20th century.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2011 09:17 AM (TpXEI)

229 Thats it? Really

Posted by: MAJHAM at January 28, 2011 09:18 AM (ngIc+)

230 Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:14 AM (tJjm/)

I've totally turned from Fox, except for Greta, she is consistent and doesn't let all those boys push her around. Sometimes Hannity. Never O'rielly or Hannity anymore.

Over the last year I have wondered why you guys revere krauthammer. He strikes me as Rove in a wheelchair and they are precisely why BO is president now.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:18 AM (p302b)

231 Barry is un-reelectable. November proved that. He's out of air; only irrelevant media whores are keeping the image alive. We could elect the steamy, coiled pile my dog just left on the lawn.
I don't the fear here.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at January 28, 2011 09:18 AM (bZ8J6)

232 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2011 09:17 AM (TpXEI)

I like IKE!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 09:18 AM (LH6ir)

233 Palin, because she's the one that fights. From what I know, Cain would be my second choice (best on the least bad squishiness I'm aware of- AA<AGW<Masscare<Pro-choice and he's the only one invulnerable to the "racism" charge).

Posted by: Methos at January 28, 2011 09:18 AM (Ew1k4)

234 219 From that list, I have to go with Sarah, just to watch liberal heads explode.


YES, that would be Sweet, sweet, SWEET!

Even sweeter would be watching her get inaugurated and listening to the comments on MSNBC! LOL!

Trouble is: I can visualize her getting the nomination, but not actually winning.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:19 AM (tJjm/)

235 Shouldn't Trump be on this list, since he's been making noises about running?

Not that I think he'd be a good candidate, just that he should be on the list.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 28, 2011 09:19 AM (TfJx1)

236 The list is incredibly underwhelming to me except for Palin. I question at this point whether she is electable, but (1) no one else on this list really is either; and (2) this pick is a first shot who do you like deal, not a back room who's gonna win deal.
Went for Palin because she shares my values, she seems as ethical as they come, she's tough and doesn't back down, she's demonstrated she can get things done, when she speaks I often feel like she's speaking for me and other conservatives, I like her and her family, she walks the walk (anyone else on the list stood up to be counted when it REALLY counts, like she has with her youngest child?), I don't need an intellectual or pseudo intellectual in office to feel good about myself - I'm comfortable with someone who is plain spoken, she understands from experience what it is to be a working person who goes about their business and pays the bills, could go on and on. As an added bonus, she looks great and drives liberals stark raving mad.
There it is. But all that said, I share the sense ofunease (I'm not exactly sure what it is) that Ace has expressed previouslyabout her as a candidate. But that's another debate. For right now, you asked who we liked.

Posted by: RM at January 28, 2011 09:20 AM (GkYyh)

237 Where's Hillary? She's bringin' the awesome!





(Actually I'm just trying to bang this chubby chick with huge tits from Hillbuzz. Carry on.)

Posted by: Dang at January 28, 2011 09:20 AM (TXKVh)

238 Fred Smith - CEO of FedEx. The guy was in the military and understands efficiency.

Posted by: The Great and Secret Show at January 28, 2011 09:20 AM (mkO8Y)

239
First choice Cain, second choice Thune. I would support Palin but I don't think she's electable.

Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 09:21 AM (Xt7UU)

240 If you really think that the media's treatment of McCain when he was
running for president and its treatment of Palin while she's not running for president are equal, you haven't been paying attention.

Family Guy had McCain with a swastika, for God's sake... My point stands. Any Republican will be demonized, so it is foolish to base a nominee on who the media tells us is electable.
Palin is as clear and positive a voice for conservatism as Reagan was. And we were told he wasn't electable either.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 09:21 AM (w7Lv+)

241 Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (Fo83G)

Well said Miss Marple. Well said.

Posted by: Abiss at January 28, 2011 09:21 AM (1ilyW)

242 Palin ftw

Posted by: Bill Carson at January 28, 2011 09:22 AM (lEU7K)

243 Over the last year I have wondered why you guys revere krauthammer. He strikes me as Rove in a wheelchair and they are precisely why BO is president now.
Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:18 AM (p302b)

I respect him because he's obviously intelligent and an adult. I do disagree with him at times, though. But on the subject of Palin, I'm starting to think he's right. I'm annoyed that Palin is so damn coy about her future... remember, at this stage in 2008 Obama had announced he was running! Meanwhile, it doesn't appear like Palin is even laying the groundwork for a possible campaign... and that has me thinking she's just playing the audience for book sales.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:22 AM (tJjm/)

244 Sarah Palin
1. She hunts Moose with her Daddy in Alaska.
2. She scares the livin' shi'ite outa democrats.
3. It's time for a Woman President.

Posted by: HEP-T at January 28, 2011 09:22 AM (MatsQ)

245 Glad to see that people are exercising critical thinking here. Okay, so
liberal heads explode. But what do you do about the fact that swing
voters' heads would explode too? And many Republicans (something on the
order of 30%, including nearly every major fundraiser) would also
explode? That leaves you with a narrow slice of the population that
likes her, and no money outside of piddling small donations. That
equals Nixon/McGovern -- in reverse.Glad to see you thought this through.


So, you don't recognize snark when you see it? It's a straw poll. On the Internet. And I really don't see a serious contender on that list, so I can vote for whoever the fuck I want for whatever reason I want. So, take your condescending bullshit and suck on it.

I see Sarah in the primaries, I don't see her getting anywhere near the nomination.

That better?

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at January 28, 2011 09:22 AM (QV82F)

246 Doesn't "the Math" make Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania the swing state?

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 09:22 AM (c3oPV)

247 Over the last year I have wondered why you guys revere krauthammer. He
strikes me as Rove in a wheelchair and they are precisely why BO is
president now.

He seemed smart until we started paying attention to what he had to say/he was one of those fake intellectuals who was impressed by Obama?

Posted by: Methos at January 28, 2011 09:23 AM (Ew1k4)

248 phoenixgirl --

You have mentioned only the statutory qualifications for the Presidency. If those were the only TRUE qualifications, then YOU would be qualified to be President. *I* would be qualified to be President (actually, not old enough yet). Ace would be qualified. Joe Biden would be qualified. Abe Vigoda. Practically every non-immigrant citizen over the age of 35.

But since you're not *REALLY* that stupid I already know that you don't think they're all really qualified. Obviously something else is required to be actually qualified for the job, not only in the eyes of voters (and they're the ultimate arbiters in a democratic sense) but in the practical sense of having the experiential qualifications for the job.

The fact is, you can't just walk into the Presidency without prior experience and not expect to make a fucking hash out of it every step of the way. Exhibit number one: BARACK 'COMMUNITY ORGANIZER/HALF-TERM SENATOR/ABSENTEE LAW PROFESSOR' OBAMA. He is proof that minimal governmental experience actually leads to a shitton of horrible amateurish mistakes in execution and leadership ON TOP OF his obvious liberal policy leanings (which are errors to us, but presumably not to him).

This ain't beanball. I will not vote for someone who actually cannot do the fucking job. That you would suggests that you don't really take any of this seriously, and that you haven't *really* thought about what's best for the country. This is all a vanity exercise for you.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:23 AM (NjYDy)

249 Shouldn't Trump be on this list, since he's been making noises about running?Trump is a Democrat-like substance.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:23 AM (B+qrE)

250 She fights.

Posted by: RayJ at January 28, 2011 09:23 AM (2oRAd)

251 204 When given the option, I always vote for titties.
Posted by: Beefy Meatball at January 28, 2011 09:10 AM (bZ8J6)

Oh thank you! You'll love my new tassles!

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at January 28, 2011 09:23 AM (tJjm/)

252 Once Ace wakes up and sees Palin absolutely destroying everyone in this poll, I think it's safe to say he'll churn out 2,000 words on how moronic we all are for supporting her. Along with an Ewok photo featuring a snappy double entendre caption.

Posted by: I Like Palin! at January 28, 2011 09:24 AM (paSkt)

253 Anyone up for a Cheney/Cheney ticket?

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 09:24 AM (wgkZv)

254
Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (wuv1c)
What people don't get is that, right now, the federal government is real liberal, trending toward leftist. Assuming you want the government to shrink and move conservative massively, and assuming you want our foreign policy to be more like Reagan's or even "W's", it suffices to have a President who is reasonably conservative to push things in that direction.
I'll worry about Washington becoming more conservative than Romney when it's close to being as conservative as Romney--who can actually win.PS: fair or unfair, I believe Obama's "religious" baggage (plus the dire state of the economy and DC) has cleared room for Romney qua LDS member.

Posted by: ParisParamus at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (3/GGc)

255 Didn't we nominate Newt in 2008? No, wait! It was that other RINO with the dumb-as-a-rock daughter that talks about tattoos and thinks Palin and Bachmann "are, like, soooo icky."

Posted by: Reiver at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (64S5N)

256 Trump is a Democrat-like substance.
Also, he's a narcissisticidiot. In case, I'm not being clear.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (B+qrE)

257 Palin/Bachmann. Because they piss off all the right people.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (qzoN5)

258 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:16 AM (NjYDy)
There are too many people in the rightroots who think they can will a politician to victory just by talking about them. That if we send enough money to Christine O'Donnell and she appears on Sean Hannity's show enough times and there are sixteen blog posts about how "her chances are improving," that she'll somehow magically close a fourteen-point deficit and win the race.
Sarah Palin is going to have to win independents, because Democrats will never, ever vote for her. And she's been well and truly poisoned with independents. She's looking at a fourteen-point deficit- one she's only going to close herself. Goldwater was a great conservative who inflamed the passions of the base - and he got absolutely destroyed by a foul-mouthed Texan with a fondness for skinny-dipping and talking about his "bunghole."

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (IH3P2)

259 Jeff, dude.

What were Abe Lincoln's qualifications for the office of the president?

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (IuKAf)

260 We had close to eight solid years of Bush hatred. I think we can handle it.

Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 09:00 AM (4df7R)

Actually, it led directly to Obama, remember?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (tJjm/)

261 How about Romney/West?

Oh, shit. Did I just type that?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 28, 2011 09:26 AM (LH6ir)

262 The woman is the only one with any ca-hones. Also Bachman is a possibility as the obese dyke Meeghan McCain hates her.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:26 AM (SJ6/3)

263 Anyone up for a Cheney/Cheney ticket?
No more dynasties. They are bad for the country.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:26 AM (B+qrE)

264 really.....i think if we are going to say...this person is not qualified but that person is...we really need to have formal new qualifications....

because honestly....the framers were sooooooo stupid.....and really wanted only smart...educated at the right schools...served in elected offices in the right order kinda people to be president.....and they forgot to put the HE MAN WOMEN HATERS CLUB sign on the door because they never thought a girl could or would want to do the job......oh i forgot....they better be of the OLD kind of of religion...none of these new fangled ones that came about after the nation was formed......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (eOXTH)

265 Sarah Palin is going to have to win independents, because Democrats will
never, ever vote for her. And she's been well and truly poisoned with
independents.

No thanks to assholes on the right, who lovingly treat every Democrat attack on her as the gospel truth.

Or people like Ace, who hear odd voices when Palin talks. Voices saying "lynch the college educated" or something like that.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (IuKAf)

266 So if you want to debate who is responsible for Haiti and how Baby Doc fits into that equation, go ahead, try me.

Circa, you want that debate. If you'd like to define hell on earth and how to help those in torment now, prove how Bob Barr is making things worse for Haiti's population.

Stay on topic: Barr is providing the former horror Haitian president legal counsel. And your point was that makes Barr a horror potus candidate. Where's the evidence to discredit Barr's entire record?

My point is that Bob Barr is the strictest US Constitution constructionist on record. I approve that Barr opposed the gross augmentation of federal authoritarianism regardless of party line.

As for the FEDERAL role in legislating, prosecuting, and housing convicts of domestic behavior, aka the war on drugs, Barr's expertise saw every detail of evidence from all sides how things work and fail on instance and in the big picture. I'll allow Barr to explain his own reasoning.

My expectations? I do expect my government to
constitutionally protect the American citizenry from violent and non-violent organized crime as
well as from thugs regardless of socio-economic or ideological background, regardless of organization or nationality, be they Ivy
League elitists, white-collar crooks, corrupt public officials, ghetto gangs, terrorists, cartels or the criminally insane.







Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (H+LJc)

267 The main deal is, the first American black President will serve two terms just because he was the first acknowledged non white to serve in this position. If Sarah Palin was elected America would hear whinin' for the next eight years just like we did/do with G. W. Bush from the left. Government would come to a standstill while these liberal idiots throw a major tantrum much like two year olds who have been scolded.

Posted by: HEP-T at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (MatsQ)

268 Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:15 AM (p302b)
What's he saying? The clipsI had seen had Tingles slamming Bachman, and calling her "Balloon Head",for her supposed stupidity based on her comments regarding the FF and slavery.

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (AnTyA)

269 2 junior Senators from Illinois 2 crap presidents.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (SJ6/3)

270 Chaos.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord (respecting our national DNR order) at January 28, 2011 09:28 AM (GBXon)

271 We had close to eight solid years of Bush hatred. I think we can handle it.





Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 09:00 AM (4df7R)



Actually, it led directly to Obama, remember?

Whoopti-freaking do.


Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2011 09:28 AM (IuKAf)

272 Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2011 09:07 AM (Fo83G)
The MFM, IMO, does in fact playa role as king maker. If we choose Palin, or some other candidate designated as toxic, will we be excited? Heck yes. However an independant, when confronted by our excitement, will retort, "What was that retreat/reload business? Why'd she insert herself into the Tuscon tragedy? Lipstick on a pig? Russia from my house? etc., etc." How can we win when a significant portion of the voting pool needed to win, rightly or wrongly, feels this way? This is why a Palin candidacy will be a fiasco and more than likely lead to four more years of suck.
The same metric applies to Huckabee and Romney. The media is very well aqcuainted with their histories. They could trounce Romney for MassCare. They could trounce Huckabee for his Fox News show.
I think what we really need is a dark horse candidate to get around, or at least delay, the bite of the media fangs. This is why I choose Tim Pawlenty. I suppose this Herman Cain fellow would do, but I know nothing of him. A well vetted dark horse would be crucial, I think.

Posted by: Oilfield Dude at January 28, 2011 09:28 AM (+qHxi)

273 I didn't vote since I don't think any of them are good candidates. And oh it looks like Egypt is header into the shitter even faster than I thought

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 09:28 AM (0GFWk)

274 She's looking at a fourteen-point deficit - one she's only going to close herself. Goldwater was a great conservative who inflamed the passions of the base - and he got absolutely destroyed by a foul-mouthed Texan with a fondness for skinny-dipping and talking about his "bunghole."

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:25 AM (IH3P2)

Well, there is one intriguing way of looking at this: Someone pointed out that Obama never, ever seems to dip below 40% in the approval polls. And with even the tiniest seemingly "good" news, he immediately goes back up over 50%.

If this holds true in 2012, we are boned and he WILL be reelected.

In that case, 2012 for the GOP should be about laying the groundwork for 2016. Goldwater lost, but he paved the way for Reagan. Palin's nomination in 2012 could pave the way for a future Reagan...

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:28 AM (tJjm/)

275 Jeff, dude.What were Abe Lincoln's qualifications for the office of the president?

I motion that we include superstars Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, and Hillary Clinton on the list for JeffB's benefit.

Posted by: Methos at January 28, 2011 09:29 AM (Ew1k4)

276 If Sarah Palin was elected America would hear whinin' for the next eight
years just like we did/do with G. W. Bush from the left. Government
would come to a standstill while these liberal idiots throw a major
tantrum

That alone is reason enough to vote for her.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 09:29 AM (qzoN5)

277 It's close to stupid to compare Palin's viability with that of Reagan. Reagan was able to win in large part because he was a long-time part of the culture. Two or three generations of Americans had known him since the 1940's; that de-fanged him to enough people. Palin hasn't been de-fanged yet. That's why he best, and really, only path to the Presidency is via being someone's VP, or being a member of someone's Cabinet (Dept. Interior and Energy a scaled-down, combined entity).

Just stop the madness. Palin cannot get elected in 2012.

Posted by: ParisParamus at January 28, 2011 09:29 AM (3/GGc)

278 If Sarah Palin was elected America would hear whinin' for the next eight
years just like we did/do with G. W. Bush from the left. Government
would come to a standstill while these liberal idiots throw a major
tantrum much like two year olds who have been scolded.

Whoopti-freaking do.

If your argument against a candidate is that the lunatic left doesn't like them, you're actually arguing FOR that candidate. That the traitors and would-be tyrants dislike someone should be our first consideration, not a disqualification.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2011 09:29 AM (IuKAf)

279 Over the last year I have wondered why you guys revere krauthammer. He
strikes me as Rove in a wheelchair and they are precisely why BO is
president now.

Kraut is smarter than Rove, he wants to secure the border with a fence, while Rove was for open borders and amnesty.

Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 09:30 AM (Xt7UU)

280 I am disappointed that so many people are still clinging to this "electability" myth. Conservatives complain about the "assholes" in government in both Parties shtting all over them and the Constitution and then come up with statements like "I love candidate x's positions but they are not electable".

When you think like that just remember the meme from the MFM last time "Only McCain can beat Hillary". Electability is the stupidest reason to vote for/against anyone outside of "looks".

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 09:30 AM (M9Ie6)

281 Foreign aid is over 50% of Egypt's GDP. I don't see how that could go wrong. I see a lengthy diet in store for Egyptians.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:30 AM (SJ6/3)

282 Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (H+LJc)
We can make this simpler for you. Bob Barr is RuPaul in a moustache. He's a whackjob who's not willing to recognize threats to our country even when they're at our doorstep. If he becomes president, this country is in a lot of trouble.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:30 AM (IH3P2)

283 Just stop the madness. Palin cannot get elected in 2012.

You say that as someone who wants it to be true.

But, whatever. I guess it's either Romney or Huckabee's turn to lose.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2011 09:31 AM (IuKAf)

284 I think what we really need is a dark horse candidate to get around, or
at least delay, the bite of the media fangs. This is why I choose Tim
Pawlenty.

Yes, let's vote for the lesser of two socialists!

"Conservative for Minnesota" is not enough.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2011 09:32 AM (IuKAf)

285 Ru Paul is racist anti semite Ron Paul's other son.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:32 AM (SJ6/3)

286 I'm with you Bomber Comment 276 Go Palin!

Posted by: HEP-T at January 28, 2011 09:32 AM (MatsQ)

287

Normal
0






MicrosoftInternetExplorer4



/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}



Its a very depressing list. None of these people will beat
Obama, who for all his incompetence now has the gravitas of being president for 4 years. Most of the people on this list I either know nearly nothing about, or I have no confidence in as true
conservatives.
The presence of such old
retreads like Gingrich and Barbour, and yesteryears failures like Romney and Huckabee is a testimonial to the weakness
of the crop.And can anyone ever take Giuliani seriously again?




There are some good conservatives out there in the nation,
but they are not ready for 2012. I hate
to say theres no chance and look like were giving up, but I think the key
in 2012 will be to take the Senate and keep and increase the House control to
minimize the damage Obama can do, and prepare for a candidate who has a chance
in 2016. It would be nice to showcase some Republicans of the future, and I
would support Mr. Thune if he does a good job in the primaries. He would perhaps be part of the 2016 ticket.

Posted by: Canadaguy at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (BXk8J)

288 There's still rumors around here that Gov Goodhair (Rick Perry to you non-Texans) will make a run.

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (QV82F)

289 They should run the Rino John McCain again since he proved he was so electable.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (SJ6/3)

290 To people floating ideas of potential candidates, i have some bad news for you. The list above will probably be your choices.
It is unlikely there will be any suprise additions who have a chance of winning.
You might get a Tom Tancredo or some other one trick pony, butcandidate with a real chance of winning.
Pick from the list above, because that is who will be on the ballot in the primaries

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (wuv1c)

291 In that case, 2012 for the GOP should be about laying the groundwork for 2016.

You're assuming there will be anything left to win in 2016. I'm not terribly enamored of the odds, at the current rate.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord (respecting our national DNR order) at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (GBXon)

292 You say that as someone who wants it to be true.
You read that as somebody who wants it to be false. Scaring the Democrats is not the same as beating them, and it doesn't become true no matter how many times Rush Limbaugh says it. If scaring Democrats was enough to beat them, we'd have Senators Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnell right now.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (IH3P2)

293 Pawlenty. Relatively conservative from a blue state, would put MN into play for the first time in decades (forcing Chairman O to spend resources there that he otherwise wouldn't), executive experience. I like him.

Posted by: Crush Liberalism at January 28, 2011 09:34 AM (8X9tr)

294
Success in foreign policy requires a vision consistent with American values andthe courage to act on it.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)

As Barr did, maintaining strict application of the Constitution within governance.

American values -- toot toot

Barry Goldwater's values were American.


Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:34 AM (H+LJc)

295 Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 09:27 AM (AnTyA)

sorry, stepped away. Well essentially Beck was very strong and forceful and hit Matthews who as usual is trying to rewrite history with a torrent of facts. He actually attacked him like a liberal would attack a republican or conservative and it was very effective. I can't imagine how Matthews can ignore the attack.

It was nice to see someone step up and defend Michelle Bachman.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:34 AM (p302b)

296 It's time for a Woman President.
Funny, this was the same argument they made for Obama in 2008 for very different reasons.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 09:35 AM (pLTLS)

297 Jeff, dude.What were Abe Lincoln's qualifications for the office of the president?

If you think Sarah Palin is of the same caliber as Abraham Lincoln, feel free to say so.

Good luck selling that analogy to anyone, anywhere, ever.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:35 AM (NjYDy)

298 Beck has made it very easy to listen to the program online. Now if you go here, to his website there is a yellow button and you click and you hear him and when he's not talking he has nice music, no commercials.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:36 AM (p302b)

299 El-Barade under house arrest

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 09:36 AM (0GFWk)

300 There's a hard shell enveloping a large segment of America that has been fed government is there daddy. Another segment that encourages that thinking. Herman Cain is the guy to break that shell. Herman Cain is the guywho will tell those people keeping the other people in the shellto shove off.Unless the big government crowd is razed Americais doomed. Herman Cain is the guydriving the bulldozer.

Posted by: mantuaBill at January 28, 2011 09:36 AM (96j+b)

301 And now we can see why the MFM and Hollywood must destroy Sarah Palin.
She is the only possible GOP candidate that calls them out for what they are, and she refuses to back down. I know she is flawed, but like many conservatives, I am sick and effing tired of playing nice with the left.

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 28, 2011 09:36 AM (/EcIK)

302 Palin --if sheincorporates WTF in her campaign = Schadenboner

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 09:36 AM (8lCJT)

303 And can anyone ever take Giuliani seriously again?

NO.

HELL NO.

GO AWAY RUDY!

He wouldn't even run for the Senate against the Gillibrand Twins. That would have been easy pickings for him... schmuck.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:37 AM (tJjm/)

304 OT:

I'm banned. I don't think it's anything I done, and I've emailed Ace already. Most likely I'm just accidentally caught in a spam filter, but if anybody really cares, I'm not dead, I'm only mostly dead.

I will only be able to dispense my infinite wisdom here at McDonalds, so everybody buck up and try to muddle through.

Posted by: nickless at January 28, 2011 09:37 AM (Ktprp)

305 It's time for a Woman President.
Don't we have one right now?

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 09:37 AM (qzoN5)

306 Anyone other than a reality TV star or someone who writes notes on their hands or doesn't quit a lower position job expecting to be trusted with a higher position job.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 28, 2011 09:37 AM (A3oMO)

307 Sarah Palin. Why because the Dems should continue to be in control and it would be effing hilarious listening to the stupid shit she says. Want to shut her up? Are you kidding? The more she talks the more people hear what nonsense she spouts. Keep talking Sarah. Though I guess technically that's true with Repubs (and esp. the Tea Party variety) in general. So, yeah, keep talking, please.

Posted by: liberal loon at January 28, 2011 09:37 AM (LtkVB)

308 Once Ace wakes up and sees Palin absolutely destroying everyone in this poll
What's interesting?
You can vote more than once. How 'bout that! But it's not as if the Palin fans would ever troll websites day and night looking to promote their gal in any way shape or form. Oh wait...

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM (pLTLS)

309 Goldwater was a great conservative who inflamed the passions of the
base - and he got absolutely destroyed by a foul-mouthed Texan with a
fondness for skinny-dipping and talking about his "bunghole."


And, "Timing is everything." JFK was assassinated, and the GOP knew that the American public was distraught and not anxious for three presidents in a year's time.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM (H+LJc)

310 293 Pawlenty. Relatively conservative from a blue state, would put MN into play for the first time in decades (forcing Chairman O to spend resources there that he otherwise wouldn't), executive experience. I like him.
Not a bad idea. Ed Morrissey's been whoring himselffor Pawlenty for a long time, and he's got a shot to win.
I'll rent you guys a phone booth for your nominating convention.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM (IH3P2)

311 Stay on topic: Barr is providing the former horror Haitian president legal counsel. And your point was that makes Barr a horror potus candidate. Where's the evidence to discredit Barr's entire record?
He's a hack, maverick. If you want to be a defense attorney for blood-soaked dictators--fine. If you want to be President after being a defense attorney to blood-soaked dictators, yes there are rather obvious probelms in the optics and judgement arenas. That one would also choose to be defense counsel to the dictator upon the dictator's cynical return to the country at a time of political crisis, then the judgement question blots out the sun.
Actively voting to protect Saddam Hussein seems to indicate a trend in this regard.
And since he's such a constitutional constructionist--please point out to me the part of the Constitution that gurantees gay marriage becauseBarr is sure on board with that now since he is a Libertarian and not--repeat not--a Republican. He left, remember?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM (B+qrE)

312 OT: King Abdullah II of Jordan trying to institute reforms, lest they come for him next

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 09:39 AM (sZ+lP)

313 Palin is savaged because the media/left fears her more than anyone else. If it becomes clear that she will NOT run and someone else becomes the favorite, guess who they will turn on?
I am opposed to choosing a candidate based on who I think the media will like. I want someone who will articulate the conservative position clearly and fearlessly. So far, she is the only one.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 09:39 AM (w7Lv+)

314 Thanks for the Beck link. Looks like the Ones uplifting words have restored peace to Egypt.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:39 AM (SJ6/3)

315 Ronald Reagan.......Jr.!!!!
campaign slogan: "Not the ghost, more like a shadow".

Posted by: mark c at January 28, 2011 09:40 AM (SBIko)

316 302 Palin -- if she incorporates WTF in her campaign = Schadenboner
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 09:36 AM (8lCJT)

That's the perfect example of her personality and choice of words/jokes becoming the story and getting in the way of a conservative message. We need someone to convey the message, not get caught up in BS little "controveries" on a daily basis. She reminds me of Michael Steele in the way she generates pointless little flare ups like that.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:41 AM (tJjm/)

317 The more she talks the more people hear what nonsense she spouts.
Like "Sputnik moment" or "high speed rail"?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:41 AM (B+qrE)

318 I think Palin's problem, aside from the media coverage, is that a lot of moderate/independent/conservative democrats are getting to know her and they aren't liking what they see.
Part of Obama's appeal was no one knew anything about him. He's a guy who can give speeches, has a interesting story, and is black(let's face it, it helped more than hurt in the last election).
That was kinda Palin's appeal in 2008 as VP candidate. Here is this unheard gov from Alaska who no one knew anything about , with a beautiful family, interesting story, and was a beautiful woman(let's face the fact that i helps her too.)
The more the American people learned about/saw from each of these people made them like them less. I'm talking about your average non political person.
That needs to be taken into consideration. Electability has to be taken into consideration. A feverant belief in a candidate doesn't trump political reality.
If all you really want from a candidate in 2012 is someone who will make liberals heads explode then elect Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, because it will end in the same result for conservatives on November 3rd

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:42 AM (wuv1c)

319 From this group...Palin, possibly Cain.

I'm tired of the "electibility" argument. That gave us
McGrumpyOLdFartWho Couldn'tBeBotheredToRunA ToughMindedCampaign.

Sarah's a fighter. And willing to face the abuse of the MSM to land a political punch. The others have yet to show that quality.

I'd like to like Romney. When I hear him on the radio, he sounds great. When I see him on the TV, I want to buy a used car.

He still has yet to repudiate that steaming pile known as Romneycare. We don 't need another President full of wrongheaded ideas who can't admit he's wrong.



Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2011 09:42 AM (I49Jm)

320 One argument for Thune- the taller presidential candidate has won more than 90% of the time. Thune is 6'4, Obama is 6'1. We'll need every edge we can get. .

Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 09:43 AM (Xt7UU)

321 If you still think that anyone but Palin is the leading contender to face (and, God willing, beat) Obama, you're kidding yourself.

Drive the MFM to a total and complete public breakdown. Make Palin president.

It would also be a (VIOLENT RHETORIC ALERT) dagger to the heart of the collection of twits who currently run the GOP.

Where I come from, we call that a WIN-WIN.

Posted by: tsj017 at January 28, 2011 09:43 AM (4YUWF)

322 Sarah has guts and instinctMitt is a pussy. I will never, ever, vote for that phony.

Posted by: Reality Check at January 28, 2011 09:43 AM (PqLK/)

323 Herman Cain. He was absolutely hilarious in 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.'

Plus he's black, now.

Posted by: Typical Liberal at January 28, 2011 09:43 AM (BKOsZ)

324 Stable, respectable, competent dark horse

Posted by: Shiggz at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (KF1tq)

325 "El-Barade under house arrest" - came in to early during the coup/civil unrest, rookie mistake

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (Ja6pC)

326 I love all the Palin haters that have to suck up to the likes of Rove Junior and his headquarter catamites by endlessly reciting their bona fides. Sharmuta and Kilgore Trout couldn't do it better.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (olKiY)

327 305
It's time for a Woman President.
Don't we have one right now?

A nutless wonder is not the same thin.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (w7Lv+)

328 With Pence out and Bachmann stranglely absent the choice is an easy one -- Palin. She's had the Big Cannons blasting away at her for 2 years with every lie, and smear in the book. Time to circle the wagons and fight back.

We can win this with Palin as well as we can anyone else if the friendly fire is stopped.

Posted by: DaMav at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (QNU76)

329 The above is also an argument against Daniels, who is like 5'7.

Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 09:44 AM (Xt7UU)

330 I think this list sucks! Palin may be the most conservative, but there are so many that are convinced she's an idiot (no matter what she does) that she won't get elected.
I chose Newt by default. I want someone that will stand up to Obama and the MSM and tell it like it is forcefully with conviction. I don't see Romney or Huckabee doing that.

Posted by: Teleprompter at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (NbmYl)

331 Huckabbee should not run, because I do not think Americans will vote for a woman.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (SJ6/3)

332 Palins entire 2012 strategy is to run for the presidency, but not against Obama. Shes running against the MSM.

As the media continues to go over the top in their hatred of her, a tipping point will be reached that will generate a backlash in her favor. Shes got the conservatives, she needs independent women.

Posted by: jwest at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (qeYI9)

333 Plus he's black, now.
Posted by: Typical Liberal at January 28, 2011 09:43 AM (BKOsZ)

A reverse Michael Jackson?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (tJjm/)

334
I'll rent you guys a phone booth for your nominating convention.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM (IH3P2)
I wish I could be this funny. It's comments like this where I laugh out loud and my staff wants to know "what now" ....that make me love this place.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (p302b)

335 Sarah will get the nomination.
But it seems that that a lot of good potential candidates don't think that 2012 is a good year for the Republican party and have opted out.
As it stands now, she'll lose.

But a lot of things can happen in a year.

Posted by: RayJ at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (2oRAd)

336 If Palin mainly needs independent women, than who could she potentially run with to capture that vote? List of names?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 09:46 AM (sZ+lP)

337 I chose Newt by default. I want someone that will stand up to Obama and the MSM and tell it like it is forcefully with conviction. I don't see Romney or Huckabee doing that.



Posted by: Teleprompter at January 28, 2011 09:45 AM (NbmYl)

Oh, and you think Newt - sitting on a couch alongside Nancy Pelosi with his arm around her - WILL?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:46 AM (tJjm/)

338 I chose Newt by default. I want someone that will stand up to Obama and
the MSM and tell it like it is forcefully with conviction.

It's hard to tell it like it is forcefully with conviction after you've shared a couch with Pelosi.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 09:47 AM (qzoN5)

339 #336 Then, not than

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 09:47 AM (sZ+lP)

340 I'm going with Palin for now because I'm constantly told that Obama is unbeatable and we might as well run her now and then let her get on with her life. Also, she might win and that would be fun.

Posted by: myrenovations at January 28, 2011 09:47 AM (GCz4G)

341 #272 News from the alternate universe future:

The faltering Pawlenty campaign was further rocked today by charges that the 2007 bridge collapse over the Mississppi was caused by faulty inspections, due to Pawlenty's belt-tightening during his one-term administration.Minnesota democrats charged that he declined to run for a second term in order to avoid a legislative investigation. Pawlenty spokesman attempted to dismiss the charges, but democrats say they have documents proving the charges, which they will release next week.Meanwhile, Mrs. Pawlenty was being roundly criticized by GOP operatives as being "significantly uninvolved" in the campaign, and rumors of tension in the marriage were heard in Minneapolis.

Everything in those paragraphs I made up out of whole cloth. And i also think that a Pawlenty nomination will get you just exactly that type of coverage. No one will be immune, so I choose to go with one who hasn't backed down.

Posted by: Miss Marple at January 28, 2011 09:47 AM (Fo83G)

342 OT: King Abdullah II of Jordan trying to institute reforms, lest they come for him next
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 09:39 AM (sZ+lP)

the only thing that can keep him on the throne is something called Israel

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 09:47 AM (0GFWk)

343 S.E. Cupp joins GlennBeck.com

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (SJ6/3)

344 How about an all-woman ticket--Palin/Giuliani. If Giuliani doesn't run for mayor of Chicago.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (8lCJT)

345 I just know I'm done with voting against Dems. If the GOP ever gets my vote again, they'll do it by nominating a candidate I support.

I don't think they'll do it.

Posted by: Bugler at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (VXBR1)

346 What were Abe Lincoln's qualifications for the office of the president?If you think Sarah Palin is of the same caliber as Abraham Lincoln, feel free to say so. Good luck selling that analogy to anyone, anywhere, ever.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:35 AM (NjYDy)
Hey, it worked for me!

Posted by: BHO at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (FIDMq)

347 Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM

You brought up Haiti touting your expertise warning. And that's it? Another hollow slam with "hack" and "defense attorney". Barr is performing exactly WHAT legal service for the thug from hell? Merely defense counsel to enable more criminal fraud? No intelligence analysis for how to improve Haiti's current circumstances through the one rotten leader people know?

Your potus candidate argument substantiates the Haitian name recognition meme. No?

Answer the Haitian point in question that you raised.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (H+LJc)

348 One argument for Thune- the taller presidential candidate has won more than 90% of the time. Thune is 6'4, Obama is 6'1. We'll need every edge we can get. .
Thune seems interesting, but what exactly has he done? Ever?
I'm not ragging on him, I just honestly can't think of one accomplishment

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (wuv1c)

349 Huckabbee should not run, because I do not think Americans will vote for a woman.
Not an ugly one, anyway.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (B+qrE)

350 Note the absence of Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachmann, Chris Christie

Posted by: The-Moose: Mike at January 28, 2011 09:48 AM (LmfLh)

351 I think Palin's problem, aside from the media coverage, is that a lot of moderate/independent/conservative democrats are getting to know her and they aren't liking what they see.
Like what? Serious question.....give specific examples

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 09:49 AM (AnTyA)

352 Let's run S.E. Cupp's Rack!

It might not win, but I would definitely watch all the speeches.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:49 AM (tJjm/)

353 A reverse Michael Jackson?
------------------
Duh. If there wasn't a one for one trade, how could we, like, you know, have diversity quotas? Everything would get messed up.

Have you seen my one hitter?

Posted by: Typical Liberal at January 28, 2011 09:50 AM (BKOsZ)

354 That's the perfect example of her personality and choice of words/jokes
becoming the story and getting in the way of a conservative message. We
need someone to convey the message, not get caught up in BS little
"controveries" on a daily basis. She reminds me of Michael Steele in
the way she generates pointless little flare ups like that.

You don't get it. It's moronic stuff like this that *recommends* Palin to the sorts of people on this site who are boosting her. They don't get it. They don't realize that seeing a putative presidential candidate making "WTF" jokes on national television actually TURNS OFF a huge mass of people in the middle of the road. They genuinely don't understand that, because it's red meat *to them*. Palin says what these folks want to hear, and it tickles their hypothalamus, and therefore they think "straight talk, guns a-blazin'!" and don't even realize that a much larger segment of the population gags violently on the clownshow unprofessionality of such antics.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:50 AM (NjYDy)

355 I'm not ragging on him, I just honestly can't think of one accomplishment
He did make himself 6'4" and ruggedly handsome with that cleft chin

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 09:51 AM (AnTyA)

356 I keep up with all of the possible candidates and what they have to say. I've seen a lot of criticism that Rommney would not stand up to Obama. I would suggest to those people to google ' Romney criticizes Obama' . Im not pushing Romney I just think it's not a valid criticism.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 28, 2011 09:51 AM (A3oMO)

357 Where does not becoming involved in American citizens' personal mutual-consent domestic relations cross against constitutional lines?

How does not being involved one way or the other dictate activism for gay "marriage"?

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:52 AM (H+LJc)

358 We can make this simpler for you. Bob Barr is RuPaul in a moustache. He's a whackjob who's not willing to recognize threats to our country even when they're at our doorstep. If he becomes president, this country is in a lot of trouble.
Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:30 AM (IH3P2)

Really? What would you call the place the country is in right now?

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 09:52 AM (OlN4e)

359 "clownshow unprofessionality" sounds more like the current administration than any of the potential campaigns listed above.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 09:52 AM (qzoN5)

360 Thune seems interesting, but what exactly has he done? Ever?

Considering his juniority, Thune's committee activity is impressive. He seems very well rounded. But yes, you are right.. I'm not suggesting he's ready to be POTUS. He does need a major legislative achievement to his name.

Too bad democrats are not held to the same standard....

Posted by: Canadaguy at January 28, 2011 09:52 AM (BXk8J)

361 Like what? Serious question.....give specific examples

Here's a serious example: she has nearly SIXTY PERCENT DISAPPROVAL right now. Not merely low positive ratings, where there's a large segment of undecideds who are potentially reachable, but a near supermajority of the country has already made up their mind about her and decided they really dislike her.

Once people make up their minds about politicians, they don't unmake them, by and large. So now the burden is on *you* to explain to me why Sarah Palin is somehow going to be the one politican in the modern history of America who can undo such massive unfavorables.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:53 AM (NjYDy)

362 Flip side, whats so great about BHO to the mighty 'independents'? They got taken by the aura, and the mask is off, why would they want 4 more years of 'Present'?

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 09:53 AM (FIDMq)

363 Jon Huntsman - what about him?

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 28, 2011 09:53 AM (0fzsA)

364 This list makes me want to puke

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 09:53 AM (0GFWk)

365 336 If Palin mainly needs independent women, than who could she potentially run with to capture that vote? List of names?
Well, hell, there's quite a few VP candidates for anyone who gets the nomination, whether it's Palin or someone else.

Christie (obviously) - solid fiscal, business, and social cred
Rubio, though it might be too early
Rick Snyder or Scott Walker of Michigan or Wisconsin, resp. - put those states in play and frovide good fiscal cred

Or the other non-convential ones.

Susana Martinez - reasons should be obvious
Brian Sandoval - great portfolio, but he's pro-choice, might be a deal-breaker
Luis Fortuno of PR - not a bad idea, especially if PR statehood is on the agenda
Chris Dudley - ran a damn good campaign in OR and lost by less than 1%, could put that state into contention.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:54 AM (IH3P2)

366 Nickless,

I find my IP getting banned often in the morning, too. I suspect it's JeffB.'s doing.

Besides being a lesser Jeff, I believe he also is jealous of my thick, lustrous head of hair. Something about him just strikes me as petty, vindictive and balding. But mostly balding.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 09:54 AM (TATbF)

367 Try to imagine media coverage of a Palin-as-nominee campaign. It's almost beyond imagining.

The meltdown would come long before the election. Pure, batshit-crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth madness, on all networks, 24/7.

You know this would happen. You KNOW it to be true.

Palin 2012. A necessary step to save America.

I'm not kidding.

Posted by: tsj017 at January 28, 2011 09:54 AM (4YUWF)

368 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:50 AM (NjYDy)

I liked Palin's WTF thing. It was perfect. In fact, "WTF" probably summarizes the view of a majority of the electorate right now.

Posted by: Bugler at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (VXBR1)

369 277 It's close to stupid to compare Palin's viability with that of Reagan.
Thank you for calling me stupid. Truly, it has been so long since I've been treated to such schoolyard taunts. It makes me feel young again.
Reagan was able to win in large part because he was a long-time part of the culture. Two or three generations of Americans had known him since the 1940's; that de-fanged him to enough people.
Two or three generations had known him as an entertainer and then as a governor of California. This was in an era before the internet and ominpresent availability of instant news and entertainment. All Palin's done is speed up the process, courtesy of instant gratification media.
And please, Irevere Reagan, but he was an ACTOR. There were plenty of people who found the idea of an actor becoming President absolutely ridiculous; my grandfather was one of them. Then the man went on to have two terms and become one of the most beloved President's of the modern era; certainly to anyone who legitimately calls themself a conservative. So every time I hear someone say, "Palin has NO CHANCE," I immediately dismiss that person. The fact of the matter is, yes, she does. She has as much of a chance as any of the others on that list; a better chance than most of them. As long as she sticks to her principals, ignores the media, and maintains trust with the American people, I see no reason why she couldn't win.
Palin hasn't been de-fanged yet.
She doesn't have the luxury, since she has to keep fighting off the attacks from left and right alike.
That's why yhe best, and really, only path to the Presidency is via being someone's VP, or being a member of someone's Cabinet (Dept. Interior and Energy a scaled-down, combined entity).
I would welcome her becoming a VP or a cabinet member. On that we agree.Just stop the madness. Palin cannot get elected in 2012.
To which I say, it's still a helluva long way to the 2012 primaries. Let's quit counting our chickens before they hatch, okay? Absolutes don't always work out the way people expect.

Posted by: MWR at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (4df7R)

370 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:50 AM (NjYDy)
Sputnik moment - High Speed Rail. I'll be in my bunk

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (FIDMq)

371 I am out of here before this gets any uglier. Lacey thinks we are stacking the poll, Jeff B thinks all Palin supporters are idiots because they don't agree with him. Have a nice day, all.

Posted by: real joe at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (w7Lv+)

372
Thune seems interesting, but what exactly has he done? Ever?

I'm not ragging on him, I just honestly can't think of one accomplishment.
Exactly. I like Thune, and he's got great conservative credentials. But didn't we slam BHO for, among many things, not having accomplished anything of any significance over his entire elected career? Well, doesn't consistency demand we look at Thune the same way?
Again, I like Thune, a lot. But someone needs to tell me what he's done, because I don't know.

Posted by: Crush Liberalism at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (8NiWI)

373
I think Palin's problem, aside from the media coverage, is that a lot of moderate/independent/conservative democrats are getting to know her and they aren't liking what they see.
Like what? Serious question.....give specific examples
She only does well in the polls with conservatives. And even then she splits with Huckabee.
She is hated by moderate/liberal republicans and conservative democrats. And regardless of whether you hate them or not, we need their votes.
Palin can't even win over the conservative base, how will she win over every other vote we need?
The campaign will be a spectacle.
People talk about the media wanting to pick our president, well who do you think they want? Palin.
They don't mock her because they fear her, they mock her because they hate her.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (wuv1c)

374 364 This list makes me want to puke
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 09:53 AM (0GFWk)

I know.

I guess Conservatism has really run out of standard bearers.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (tJjm/)

375 Being CEO is a good quality, no doubt, and Cain would make a great
senator or congressman (or governor, as a first step) but to suggest he
leapfrog all the way to the most important political position on the
planet without a single iota of experience? C'mon, I expect better from
people on this site. You're not making a serious choice, you're just
masturbating. Fappity fappity fappity.

In precisely what way do John McCain's or Barak Obama's experiences in the Senate better qualify either of them to be President than Herman Cain?

Olympia Snowe or Chuck Schumer any day!

I'm not saying it's not an impossible sell but I'm also not buying that nothing but parking your ass in a fucking seat for a year or a century two qualifies as "experience".

The man didn't just fucking stumble out of kindergarten you know...

Posted by: Deety finds Presidents Perplexing at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (Jb3+B)

376 Haven't read any comments.. Right now?..Sarah!!
Only because their motherfuckin' heads will explode.

Post blizzard, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg issued mighty mea culpas but got a frigid shoulder from press and people for his citys tepid response to the polar blasts. The mayor did manage to hire 1,900 extra day laborers to help with the cleanup, though. Meanwhile, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie caught cold criticism because he was on vacation in Florida when the storm dumped 30-plus inches of snow on the Garden State. But heh. His absence has political metaphor.

Gov. Christie is one the nations few but thankfully increasing in number realistic pols who govern under the very obvious operational assumption that the government and those who populate it cannot do everything, be everywhere and do everything for everyone. That includes predicting the weather. Are you listening, global warming bureaucrats?

Democrats the party of everything government for everyone are naturally frightened of and threatened by the less-government tea party movement that swept across the nation and shows no sign of abating. And they fear people like Christie and Sarah who effectively articulate the less government message, will lash out in often bizarre ways, including loudly chastising the New Jersey governor for not being a meteorologist. I don't have to say what they lash out at Sarah!

Posted by: sickinmass at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (1rflU)

377 "clownshow unprofessionality" sounds more like the current administration than any of the potential campaigns listed above.

Hey man, no argument here. Obama's a disgrace in terms of execution alone (i.e. leaving aside his actual political positions) from the "reset button" debacle to his horrible mishandling of the optics of the Deepwater Horizon spill to his inability to look like anything but a weak, unengaged C-in-C during the entire 2010 year to his botching of the legislative strategy for his personal baby of ObamaCare. His team was truly, majestically incompetent.

Which only goes to prove my point: that you can't fucking "fake" this job by having a vague set of "good principles" (from either perspective, left or right) and then delegating to "the right people." You have to have executive competence, plus an ability to move legislative concrete through sheer persuasive force of your personality.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (NjYDy)

378 Wow, Huckabee currrently behind even Ron Paul. Sad... and awesome.

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (1hLHC)

379
The opposite forces that surfaced in Davos were Nicolas Sarkozy, French President but also the man holding the presidency of the G8 and G20, and Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan and one of Wall Street's genuine big beasts.

Sarkozy was on stage, Dimon was in the audience waiting to ask his question or, more accurately, deliver a lecture on why good banks need politicians to deliver "good policies" when it comes to regulatory change.

Sarkozy is not a man given to being lectured to, especially by bankers. He retorted by asking if we had forgotten how the crisis began, reminded us of the public anger over the bailouts and questioned why so many bankers had their hands up high in the good times, demanding bonuses, but refused to be accountable when things went wrong.

I'll trade Barry for Sarkozy. Sarkozy has more balls than Barry, I'm sure he can prove where he was born and his wife is actually hot.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (1Jaio)

380 Really? What would you call the place the country is in right now?
Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 09:52 AM (OlN4e)
A place where terrorist bombs don't explode on our subways every two weeks because a Republican dismantled our security operations, thank you very much.

Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (IH3P2)

381 355I'm not ragging on him, I just honestly can't think of one accomplishment
He did make himself 6'4" and ruggedly handsome with that cleft chin.
Credit his parents and another ancestors for that achievement.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (9hSKh)

382 Actively voting to protect Saddam Hussein seems to indicate a trend in this regard.

As if voting against the Iraqi War was un-American and immoral, Barr already KNOWING the negative outcomes to counter whatever good intentions, having lived there himself for a time, knowing the people personally, knowing their problems through experience in the MidEast, knowing the intensification of instability for Iraq's minority populations, and for the entire region.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 09:57 AM (H+LJc)

383 I added my vote to the Cain pile, under the "you have to vote for it to learn more about it" rule.
Not sure if I care that he hasn't held another office. Could be good, could be bad.
So that's the only thing about him that I could possibly have against him.
Don't know much of anything about Daniels, Thune or Barbour.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 28, 2011 09:57 AM (XdlcF)

384 Face it -- in order to WIN THE ELECTION you have to WIN THE INDEPENDENT VOTE.Bolton, Palin, Perry, Ryan etc. can't win that demographic.

Why can't Perry, a former Democrat, win Independents?

I do not think Independent means what you think it means...

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 09:57 AM (pW2o8)

385 Let me put it to you this way. Of the people on that list that I have heard speak...the ONLY one I'd vote for right now is Palin. If Mitt "healthcare" Romney is the nominee, I stay home. If "I like to spend" Huckabee is the nominee, I stay home...and I know a lot of folks just like me.

No more squishes.


Posted by: GMan at January 28, 2011 09:58 AM (sxq57)

386 Besides being a lesser Jeff, I believe he also is jealous of my thick,
lustrous head of hair. Something about him just strikes me as petty,
vindictive and balding. But mostly balding.

Petty and vindictive I'll give you, but I have a young, lustrous head of hair myself.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:58 AM (NjYDy)

387 Prediction: and i say this with love and adoration for Sarah;Ye who drives leftists into uncontrolled frothing rages.
If Sarah is our nominee - say hello to 4 more year of captain unicorn skittles.
I think Sarah should be the right'sover-exposedambassador to she who drives the left insane.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 28, 2011 09:59 AM (0fzsA)

388 365
336 Well, hell, there's quite a few VP candidates for anyone who gets the nomination, whether it's Palin or someone else. Christie (obviously) - solid fiscal, business, and social cred
Rubio, though it might be too early
Rick Snyder or Scott Walker of Michigan or Wisconsin, resp. - put those states in play and frovide good fiscal cred
Or the other non-convential ones....

I think she very well may be able to win if she picks the right person, though I don't really know who that is. But the same strategy helped pull in a lot of voters who were mainly voting for her in '08, and I think surrounding herself with people seen as academics could give her a major credibility boost among certain segments of the population.


Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 09:59 AM (sZ+lP)

389 I know.

I guess Conservatism has really run out of standard bearers.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:55 AM (tJjm/)

It's not that I hate anyone in particular on the list, I just don't think any of them can win and that is ALL I care about

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 10:00 AM (0GFWk)

390 Paul Ryan/Chris Christie - co-presdients who will save us from the democrat's fast track to socialism.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 28, 2011 10:00 AM (0fzsA)

391 This Thune guy supports Ethanol for purposes other then drinking. RINO tendencies.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:00 AM (SJ6/3)

392
Once Ace wakes up and sees Palin absolutely destroying everyone in this poll

What's interesting?

You can vote more than once. How 'bout that! But it's not as if the
Palin fans would ever troll websites day and night looking to promote
their gal in any way shape or form. Oh wait...
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 09:38 AM (pLTLS)
---We can haz multiple votes? "Thank you, we have already counted your vote." Looks like you're wrong, Lacey. Unless maybe if you clear cookies, multiple computers, etc., and I don't have the time or inclination for doing that.


Posted by: I Like Palin! at January 28, 2011 10:01 AM (paSkt)

393 Again, if you want to elect a nominee because quote "heads will explode" then pickPalin.
Unfortunatley "heads exploding" isn't a vote getter.
Also, can we talk about the fact that Palin polls worse with women that most other republican candidates?
I hate that i have to say this everytime, but I kinda like Palin, however I am trying to be objective here.
What group does Palin appeal to that we need to win elections. Independents? Hispanics? Women? Union memebers?
We need to peal off a decent percentage of each of those categories to win.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:01 AM (wuv1c)

394 They don't realize that seeing a putative presidential candidate making "WTF" jokes on national television actually TURNS OFF a huge mass of people in the middle of the road.
...that or it turns them off because they are told to be turned off by the media.
Seriously...have you actually heard one -let alone a huge mass of them-self-described independent say that Palin's use of the WTF term turned them off..??
...or were you hearing the media telling us..without citing anyone...that?

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 10:01 AM (AnTyA)

395 380
Really? What would you call the place the country is in right now?

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 09:52 AM (OlN4e)

A place where a political pit stop, complete with cheering college kids and free t-shirts, is passed off with a straight face as a "memorial service," and MSNBC types are "offended" anyone should say boo about it. THAT'S where.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 10:01 AM (tJjm/)

396 Actually, I think Paul Ryan would be a good pick. He's young, presents himself in a way more intelligent that Obama, and really seems to want to fix things with a plan, not hope. That said, I picked Haley Barbour. He doesn't want to run though. But he's no idiot, and has a good approach to running an administration. Call mea RINO Squish, but Dennis Archer (former Mayor of Detroit) would be a better option than what we have for president now.

Posted by: Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:02 AM (4SKYj)

397 OK, maverick--here you go.
Jean Claude Duvalier's policies left Haiti broke (even his father didn't really manage that) and bereft of civil institutions. Years of violent action against real and imagined opponents resulted in a brain drain that the country has never recovered from.
In answer to your point above--yes, it is apparent that Baby Doc's return at this particular juncture was not an accident. He is calling in old debts and introducing yet another element of uncertainty at a time the country is sitting on the edge of yet another period of unrest. Barr is not exhibiting deep knowledgeor shrewd judgement in hisactions here. Only a cynic would seek a relationship with Duvalier.
If you have never been to Haiti, the level of poverty and the complete lack of capacity on the part of the governmentare difficult to imagine for Americans. Open sewers, collapsed buildings, shuttered storefronts are the norm. Simple subsistence economic activity is the guiding force of life.
International assistance is a curse when it goes beyond emergency needs. The climate of dependance that it creates and the accompanying leech-like administrative structures from the UN and NGOs do nothing to aid the country. Haiti needs tough love. Pure and simple.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (B+qrE)

398 394
They don't realize that seeing a putative presidential candidate making "WTF" jokes on national television actually TURNS OFF a huge mass of people in the middle of the road.

You mean when they're not watching 13 year olds copulate on MTV?

Face it, we've entered a strange new world.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (tJjm/)

399 Gabe, why isn't Bauchman on the poll? Didn't she indicate a few weeks ago that she was interested in running?

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (M9Ie6)

400 "Wow, with all the complaints about Sarah Palin around here, how come she's at the top? "

Because contrary to the bloggers and the big mouths, Palin has wide support.

Posted by: moi at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (Ez4Ql)

401 385
Let me put it to you this way. Of the people on that list that I have
heard speak...the ONLY one I'd vote for right now is Palin. If Mitt
"healthcare" Romney is the nominee, I stay home. If "I like to spend"
Huckabee is the nominee, I stay home...and I know a lot of folks just
like me.No more squishes.


Which is partially why we got Obama, and we don't even know if this experiment to get another Reagan/ restore conservatism is going to work in-time to save the Republic.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (sZ+lP)

402 Ah Cairo.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (SJ6/3)

403 On the WTF joke, keep in mind that Obama started that one.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 10:03 AM (M9Ie6)

404 Again, if you want to elect a nominee because quote "heads will explode" then pickPalin.
Quit making sense, Ben.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 10:04 AM (pLTLS)

405 She is hated by moderate/liberal republicans and conservative democrats. And regardless of whether you hate them or not, we need their votes
Again...tell me why you think that is

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 10:04 AM (AnTyA)

406 What if Palin spewed F-bombs as much as Rahm Emanuel does??

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2011 10:05 AM (TFSHk)

407 Actually, I think Paul Ryan would be a good pick. He's young, presents himself in a way more intelligent that Obama,
I really really really like Paul Ryan, he is my favorite, however he looks like a 10 year old boy and has no name recognition.
He's probably the smartest man in congress.
He will be the president some day, and he will be a good president, but it won't happen in 2012.
To me, he and Rubio are the two best men in our future Republican Presidential Candidates Bullpen.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:05 AM (wuv1c)

408 Buy some rice futures.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:05 AM (SJ6/3)

409 390 Paul Ryan/Chris Christie - co-presdients who will save us from the democrat's fast track to socialism.

Ryan isn't running (at least for the time being) and we need him here he is right now. As for Christie, the same goes for him.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 10:05 AM (sZ+lP)

410 Since I have been accused of being an idiot for pointing out that Palin has a huge problem with independents (college educated white women in particular), I pose this question for those supporters that blindly think that she is going to sprinkle fairy dust and change the way these people think. Abortion, it is the single social issue that destroys candidates on both sides and will prevent most of the independent women from voting for Palin.

Just take a look how well things went in CA for the pro-life women in the last election. Palin wins hands down with far right conservatives, but loses the Democrats and a lot of the Independents on this one issue. I fully support her position, but guess what I am not who she needs to convince. She can't back burner the issue and there is no way the media is going to let her slip past it knowing how devastating it is to her with the independents. So how is she going to convince those independents to vote for her?

Cain fells the same way she does on abortion, but isn't likely to bludgeon the voters with it and Daniels definitely won't. So you tell me how decades of stupidity is going to be overcome, that previously mentioned fairy dust? We need to stop stroking our egos and realize that it takes other voters to win elections and Palin is simply unacceptable to them.

To win an election you must win the middle and you can do this while still holding to core conservative beliefs. You just have to focus on the critical issues that the independent voter are concerned with (pocketbook issues), while not beating them up over something they are never likely to change their mind on. Reagan did a very masterful job on this issue, but that is not the case with Palin. So I am the idiot and gladly wear the title, if it means that people wake up to reality and look for someone that holds the correct core values, while still being electable.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at January 28, 2011 10:05 AM (VW9Wz)

411 The President has been briefed on the crisis in Egypt? Obama: Isn't that the place I gave that speech?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 10:06 AM (0GFWk)

412 Note the absence of Bobby Jindal
Well, what have you heard about him lately? Some conservatives here in his LA are grumpy about him not doing enough about the state budget. We'll see how he does with that in the next few months.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 28, 2011 10:06 AM (XdlcF)

413 Egyptians flood the streets, defying police and calling for regime change



Why can't we do it this way, right now?

Posted by: Heather Radish's Stepdad at January 28, 2011 10:06 AM (4sQwu)

414 She is hated by moderate/liberal republicans and conservative democrats. And regardless of whether you hate them or not, we need their votes
Again...tell me why you think that is
I'm citing the only thing people can cite at this point. Polls. She does badly with women and independents.
Unforutnately you can't win elections with 60% of the support of the AoSHQ message boards.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:06 AM (wuv1c)

415 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (NjYDy)
But hey,everbody is all fired up to re-elect him right? If thats the case then last one out turn off the CFL's please.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 10:07 AM (FIDMq)

416 Hey look guys GMan is going to basically vote for Obama if he doesnt get his way. Poor baby.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 28, 2011 10:07 AM (A3oMO)

417 Cain's my choice, but I would vote for Pawlenty, Daniels, Perry as well. I would not ever cast a vote for Huckabee. I think there are worse things than losing, like hanging your entire brand on a pro-life statist.

Seriously folks, watch Cain at the SLRC, at least the first two and a half minutes. Great story. Non-politician.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/rightscoop/videos/22/
Then imagine Obama on the same stage and how small he'll seem.

Posted by: Morgan at January 28, 2011 10:07 AM (raRpC)

418 Ron Paul serves his constituents responsibly according to his Libertarian-Republican view of constitutional governance.

Bob Barr served his constituents responsibly according to his Republican-Libertarian view of constitutional governance.

Going against the revisionist progressive socialist flow for the sake of constitutional integrity takes strength of character.

Swallowing revisionist history isn't strengthening whatever protest of corruption that the Tea Party movement yet faces from the Republican establishment.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 10:07 AM (H+LJc)

419 Why are so many of you afraid of what the MFM will do if Palin runs?

Palin gets shit from them and calls them lying fucktards for it and you guys wet your pants.

"She can't win" and "She's damaged goods" are just excuses to say no.





Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:07 AM (n0WLs)

420 You missed Gary Johnson, he's running, Ron Paul isn't.

Posted by: Doc Merlin at January 28, 2011 10:07 AM (ugIJ1)

421 Wow, Sarah is sooooo far out.....
ahead in this poll, leading with 43% of the morons here. Easy to see why the name applies. Unfortunately Sarah is unelectable.
My choice is Huckabee, only because the "None of the Above" button was missing.
The Repubs need a hero to come riding in on a dark horse and sweep the faithful off their feet and tap the energy of the tea drinkers.
I woud volunteer, but can't afford the paycut.

Posted by: MisterMoney at January 28, 2011 10:08 AM (wN82N)

422 Hey I found this in the Internet Wayback Machine:

Straw Poll 1980
- George Bush
- Phil Crane
- Howard Baker
- Ronald Reagan
- John Connally
- John Anderson

We are so boned.
Not a single conservative among them
Reagan? The Actor? Out of office since 74? The guy who pushed for all kinds of lefty initiatives in California? No way. Maybe we can draft Jerry Ford.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 10:08 AM (8lCJT)

423 Egyptians flood the streets, defying police and calling for regime changeWhy can't we do it this way, right now?
We're closer than you think. Those Egyptian protesters are pissed because they think Egypt is not Islamic enough.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 10:08 AM (qzoN5)

424 Are we supposed to pick who we like the most? Or who we support that we think has a chance?

Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 10:09 AM (GTbGH)

425 Wow, with all the complaints about Sarah Palin around here, how come she's at the top? " Because contrary to the bloggers and the big mouths, Palin has wide support

also, if you add up the polls, she only has less than 50% of the vote.
Now the question is, did people vote for other because they honestly prefer them or did they vote for others because they were "not palin"

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:09 AM (wuv1c)

426 391
This Thune guy supports Ethanol for purposes other then drinking. RINO tendencies.

Yes. I noticed that. And he is probably more religiously driven than I would like,. But no one is perfect. And as is clear from this discussion, there is no really good candidate for 2012.

Posted by: Canadaguy at January 28, 2011 10:09 AM (BXk8J)

427 Thune seems interesting, but what exactly has he done? Ever?

I'm not ragging on him, I just honestly can't think of one accomplishment
He knocked off a Dem Senate Majority leader. Not an easy thing to do.

That said, I don't really give a damn how much he's accomplished. If he's conservative, and can beat Obama, that's good enough for me.

Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 10:09 AM (Xt7UU)

428 ..that or it turns them off because they are told to be turned off by the media.
Seriously...have you actually heard one -let alone a huge mass of them-self-described independent say that Palin's use of the WTF term turned them off..??
...or were you hearing the media telling us..without citing anyone...that?
No, I wasn't. But okay, fine. Let's grant your point: stuff like Palin chirping "WTF?!" on the Sean Hannity show only turns people off because they are told by the media that they should be scandalized.

What do you propose to do about it, in that case? Do you control the media? Can you get them to change their dismissive, hateful, contemptuous -- and apparently 100% effective in terms of driving the narrative -- approach towards Palin? Do you have pods we can surreptitiously slip underneath the beds of Chrissy Matthews, Brian Williams, Bob Schieffer, and every single reporter and staffer at the AP, WaPo, NY Times, and Politico? Are you going to create an alternative media structure that will circumvent the MSM over the next year and completely neutralize them, reaching not only conservative voters, but swing voters and "Reagan Democrat" types?
Your argument defeats itself, Beedubya. Even if I concede that "it's really just the media's fault," then we're still fucking stuck with the media. Its power, under your analysis that we're accepting for the sake of argument, is still devilishly effective. Therefore we have to work with it -- you cannot work around it.
And that's only if I concede that it's all just MSM-created smoke mirrors. I don't, at all. But I'm granting you your argument just to point out that it fails even taken on its own terms.


Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:10 AM (NjYDy)

429 Someone needs to add Senator Michael S. Lee (R-Utah) to that list. If you haven't heard him speak, hit YouTube and his speech to the Federalist Society. This guy knows the Constitution inside and out and clerked for Justice Sam Alito.
But then, the left would be telling us that a first time Senator with only one year under his belt is not "qualified" to be POTUS. Oooops.

Posted by: retire05 at January 28, 2011 10:10 AM (euzZJ)

430 Are we supposed to pick who we like the most? Or who we support that we think has a chance?
a happy medium between the two is optimal.
The most conservative who is electable.
The only time this doesn't hold is if there is someone special (see: Ronald Reagan) and even then there have to be some external factors to help

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:10 AM (wuv1c)

431 Ben, I think the name recognition will be solved soon. The media is scared of him, and going on the attack to demonize Paul Ryan. If he rises to it, I think he'll be a front runner. As a side note, I'd like to see Allen West as his running mate. West has the capacity to be the beststrong-arm in VP history.

Posted by: Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:10 AM (4SKYj)

432 Why do all of you think Obama is unbeatable? The last election was a pure repudiation of Obama and his policies. So the 2010 election did not mean anything. The people know that have to get rid of Obama to get rid of Obamacare!

Posted by: George Stout at January 28, 2011 10:10 AM (By4wu)

433 Mitch Daniels.
I hadn't heard of him until National Review did a profile of him a little over a ear ago. It talked about how he'd massively cut the budget of Indiana and helped turn a rust belt state around.
I adore Sarah Palin, and I love the way she gets under the president's skin. I think she'd be a great President, but she has been systematically destroyed by the media and the democrats (BIRM).
I think Mitch Daniels would concentrate on our crippling financial problems, which is what we're going to need after 4 years of Obama and the excesses of George W. Bush. He seems to be personally conservative, so I imagine he would pick good Supreme Court nominees. Other than that, the President has little to do with the social issues.
Anyone but Obama, but Daniels is looking like a good choice right now.

Posted by: Palandine at January 28, 2011 10:11 AM (g7D8V)

434 Mrs. Sar Kastik
Well, if there's no difference between Obama and who I'd be voting for, why the hell should I bother...
Douchebag

Posted by: GMan at January 28, 2011 10:11 AM (sxq57)

435 >>>My choice is Huckabee, only because the "None of the Above" button was missing.

Posted by: MisterMoney at January 28, 2011 10:08 AM (wN82N)

gag. I'd vote third party (Chuck Baldwin?) before voting for another big government "conservative"; Huck is even worse than GWB.

Posted by: gm at January 28, 2011 10:11 AM (HXzaq)

436 I'm going with Herman Cain - why?
because people keep telling me Sarah Palin is too stupid to be POTUS and if they keep saying it, then it must be true, right?

Posted by: Shoey at January 28, 2011 10:11 AM (ehKDD)

437 Pawlenty, because he (1) has significant executive experience, (2) doesn't piss off any major factions and (3) has no baggage. Yes, he's dry white toast, but that's not a negative.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at January 28, 2011 10:12 AM (W54Uh)

438
I'll trade Barry for Sarkozy. Sarkozy has more
balls than Barry, I'm sure he can prove where he was born and his wife
is actually hot.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (1Jaio)
I wouldn't. I'm not going to fight with you on this but the end of this book on the crisis and the economy hasn't been written. You don't know what President Obama and Jamie dimon know. about this financial crisis that maybe someday may not make Mr. Dimon and he banksters look so bad. I may not always agree with President Obama but he is my president and I will support him.Jamie Dimon has been a good business man. He's a good guy. I tend to listen when he talks, he's not a blowheart.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 10:12 AM (p302b)

439 423 That is true. One of the targets was a KFC. The dictator retains power by fomenting hatred against the U.S., Israel, and infidels.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:12 AM (SJ6/3)

440 I could strongly support Cain, Daniels, Pawlenty and Palin. The rest are meh - but I'd support any of them except for Huck ... and maybe Romney.

Posted by: gm at January 28, 2011 10:13 AM (HXzaq)

441 "She can't win" and "She's damaged goods" are just excuses legitimate reasonsto say no.
fify

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:13 AM (wuv1c)

442
>>No more squishes....

For a Marxist like Barack Obama changing his basic nature is really not possible. It is in his DNA and the only way to successfully deal with him is to remember he is a liar who will say anything to get his way.

In the lead up to his election Obama frequently spoke against earmarks, and actually became a co-sponsor of Senator Jim DeMints bill to ban earmarks. Taking this position helped blunt the lingering doubts about him and eased his way to election.

Nevertheless, immediately upon taking office Obama signed an Omnibus spending bill packed with 9000 earmarks costing $5 billion, most of which were submitted by fellow Democrats. That this violated the pledge he posted on his White House website to slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public meant nothing to Obama, The Scorpion-in-Chief.

Watching Obama lie and double cross reminds us of the fable of the turtle and the scorpion. As it goes, a sudden storm strands a scorpion on the wrong side of a rising river and puts him in danger of drowning. Seeing a nearby turtle the scorpion asks him for a ride to the safety on the far bank of the torrent. At first the wary turtle answers, No I wont because you will sting me and kill me. The scorpion smiles and says, Oh no my friend that would be illogical and both of us would die. The foolish turtle agrees and the scorpion climbs on his back. When the inevitable happens and the scorpion stings the turtle half way across the river, the dying turtle asks, Why would you do this, its so illogical and it will kill us both? The drowning scorpion answers, Its my nature. I am a scorpion and I do what scorpions do.

The 9000 earmarks in February 2009 was a deadly sting to the foolish turtle-like Republicans who wanted to help the Scorpion- in-Chief reach his goal of getting to the other side of his first year in office.

Tuesday night the Scorpion-in-Chiefs speech included this promise, .. if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it. He is promising he wont sting the Republican turtles if they will just help him toward his re-election. Has the turtle learned his lesson? Well see.

Posted by: sickinmass at January 28, 2011 10:13 AM (1rflU)

443 The American people put a neophyte into office in 2008 - they aren't going to make that mistake again, so anyone on this list who can't be seen as an economic powerhouse ready to hit the ground running on day one is a non-starter. That knocks out most of that list.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 28, 2011 10:13 AM (cqv5O)

444 Some complaining about Jindal, at American Thinker.
If I find anyone defending him, I'll post it...

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 28, 2011 10:13 AM (XdlcF)

445 West has the capacity to be the beststrong-arm in VP history.

I think he's learned that he can't use his pistol-and-clearing-barrel trick anymore. But damn that would be fun.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 10:14 AM (qzoN5)

446
This Thune guy supports Ethanol for purposes other then drinking. RINO tendencies

He's ranked the sixth most conservative member of the Senate and has been endorsed by the most conservative (Inhoffe). Hardly a RINO .

Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 10:14 AM (Xt7UU)

447 Your argument defeats itself, Beedubya. Even if I concede that "it's really just the media's fault," then we're still fucking stuck with the media. Its power, under your analysis that we're accepting for the sake of argument, is still devilishly effective. Therefore we have to work with it -- you cannot work around it.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:10 AM (NjYDy)
So we should look for the candidate that the MFM will only spew lies, vitriol at about half the rate they would at Palin. It makes no difference who it is, they will be attacked with no mercy.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 10:14 AM (FIDMq)

448 The Egyptians pulled the plug on Al Jihada.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:14 AM (SJ6/3)

449 >>Because contrary to the bloggers and the big mouths, Palin has wide support.

So did Fred!

This may come as a shock to some but the people who hang out on conservative sites but they are not exactly a representative sample of the electorate.

Palin had a great opportunity to get out on the trail, bone up on policy and demonstrate that she was more than the right wing attack dog role she was forced to play last election. That was her job then, its the job every VP plays in a presidential election. But most of the country had never heard of her and that's all they know of her.

Instead, she retreated to the safety of twitter, facebook, Fox and reality shows. She has come across to her supporters as a strong conservative voice. She has come across to everyone else as the same person they saw last cycle. Poll after poll after poll demonstrate this fact. She is adored by conservatives and extremely negatively by the rest of the country. That may serve her well in the primary, it won't serve her or us well in the general.

Time is running out for her to change the negatives. If she doesn't get busy you're just fooling yourself if you think she has a chance at the presidency.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2011 10:14 AM (TMB3S)

450 Those were the exact same "positives" Ross Perot brought to the race with Clinton and Booosh.
1. I am still of the belief that part of what motivated Perot's run was a desire to kneecap Bush.
2. I would still have preferred Perot to Clinton.
Others keep bringing up Cain's lack of political experience. I would remind everyone that the current occupant of the office had all of two years of experience in big boy politics (I discount state legislative experience because it's small-time) and most of that was spent running for president. The current occupant's problems stem not from his lack of political experience; his problems stem from alack of any leadership experience whatsoever. He's never done anything at all.
On the other hand, Caintook over a failing franchise, brought it out of bankruptcy, made it profitable, and then bought the franchise out. He's also served as Chairman and Member of the Board of the Federal Reservebank of Kansas City. If his experience doesn't describe exactly what we need right now then I don't know what does.
I care about results, not punches on a ticket.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 28, 2011 10:14 AM (JxMoP)

451 If we go with Palin, SHE will be the issue. We need to make the Deficit & Economy the issue. It's that simple.

BTW,

Check out today's photo on Bing. A monkey that looks eerily human... sort of like Rahm's younger brother, if Rahm was human...

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 10:15 AM (tJjm/)

452 Srsly -- a Huckabee/Romney ticket would attract all of the evangelicals and socons. Speaking strictly in terms of electability, capturing those demographics would make the ticket virtually unbeatable.
Posted by: Ed Anger

I disagree. I'm guilty of that dreaded sin, being a social con. I wouldn't vote for either of them. They will certainly attract many who give weight to some social issues, but that can be easily countered by a candidate that is pro-life and isn't openly hostile to religion ad marriage.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 10:15 AM (R2fpr)

453 I must say tho that Thune's support for confiscatory taxes for people he doesn't like (i.e., the bonus tax) is a major negative for him.

Posted by: gm at January 28, 2011 10:16 AM (HXzaq)

454 Allen West, the 21st century Arron Burr? I don't think West would miss next time...... LOL Viloent Rhetoric.

Posted by: Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:16 AM (4SKYj)

455 It has to be a mannequin-looking white guy that we find acceptable. One of us, you know. Don't want to rock the boat too much.

Posted by: GOP Establishment at January 28, 2011 10:16 AM (4YUWF)

456 Srsly -- a Huckabee/Romney ticket would attract all of the evangelicals and socons. Speaking strictly in terms of electability, capturing those demographics would make the ticket virtually unbeatable.
Posted by: Ed Anger

Wow - you actually found a ticket that could get me to vote for Obama.

Posted by: gm at January 28, 2011 10:17 AM (HXzaq)

457 It takes about a gallon of diesel fuel to create a gallon of ethanol.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:17 AM (SJ6/3)

458 >>>>Abortion, it is the single social issue that destroys candidates on both sides and will prevent most of the independent women from voting for Palin.>>>
Palin nominated a pro-abortion judge to the Alaskan Supreme Court.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 28, 2011 10:18 AM (TFSHk)

459 That Palin could not get her endorsed Senate candidate elected in her own Republican state should tell you something. Palin is like Coulter or Malkin to me except not as smart. I love them all but not for President. Well maybe Coulter. But that's the point, she could never win.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 28, 2011 10:18 AM (A3oMO)

460 The outcome in Egypt will not be good for Israel. Or The Bangles.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 10:19 AM (3iMgs)

461 Time is running out for her to change the negatives. If she doesn't get busy you're just fooling yourself if you think she has a chance at the presidency.
Posted by: JackStraw

But this returns us to the crux of this thread. Are we asking people for their ideal candidate? ?r are we asking a bunch of Morons who they think is likely to run, and of them, who is most electable?

Or are we asking both?

Welcome my friends to the Return of the Delaware Republican Senate Primary.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 10:20 AM (R2fpr)

462 The truth about Palin is the Left hates her because she is Conservative, and happy, and full of energy and desire to serve the USA.

The Jelly-Dicks on the Right hates her because she is Conservative, and happy, and full of energy and desire to serve the USA.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:20 AM (n0WLs)

463 261
How about Romney/West?

I like it, even if it's chief appeal is the disgraceful necessity of negating Obama's only political ace.

Then again, what if this all-East Coast ticket makes the USA tilt to the right and capsize?

Posted by: ParisParamus at January 28, 2011 10:21 AM (PxAIw)

464 First time I ever saw video from Egypt where that clown Zawee Hawass was not mugging for the camera.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:21 AM (SJ6/3)

465 The outcome in Egypt will not be good for Israel. Or The Bangles.

Or the US. From a strictly naval perspective, losing access to the Suez Canal would be a big fuckin' deal. It's not like the Straits of Hormuz, where anybody can go through. You have to have a cooperative Egyptian government.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 10:21 AM (qzoN5)

466 Huckabee and Romney on the same ticket? Youd be more likely to see Jimmy McElroy and Chaz Michael Michaels on the same rink together.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 10:22 AM (3iMgs)

467 Tim Pawltney, although largely by process of elimination.
First of all, I don't think the GOP should nominate a candidate who has been responsible for massive expansion of the welfare state like, say, Romneycare, or massively wasteful boondoggles like, say, The Big Dig. If the GOP nominee isn't going to roll back Obamacare andwasteful pork barrell spending what's the point of winning in the first place? For similar reasons, I'd eliminate Barbour; by all accounts he's been a good governor of Mississippi but his ties to lobbyists and the GOP party machinery are far too deep. And Huckabee too, as the spending orgy he engaged inas Governor was completely incompatable with his newfound tea party piety.
Next, I'm eliminating the candidates I really, really don't like. So Huckabee is out (again), as is Gingrich (who I'm eliminating for other reasons as well).
Santity is also an important Presidential quality, so I'm eliminating Ron Paul.
I'd also eliminate the un-nominatable. For the same reason I hold my nose up and vote for the (often mediocre) GOP candidate rather than a third party choice, I'm gonna vote for someone who has a chance of winning the nomination, even if he isn't the candidate I like the most. So Giuliani and Cain are out.
Candidates who are unelectable in the General are out too, unless there isnt anyone better. So Gingrich is out. Palin too, provided however, that if the only candidates left are some combination of Romney/Huckabee/Gingrich, etc. she will reluctantly get my vote.
That leaves Thune, Pawlenty Daniels. Thune rubs me the wrong way, I don't know what it is but he just does. Plus his career is fairly short and largely based in the Senate where he probably "voted for the Bush Agend 179% of the time" or something (I can see the ads now). Daniels seems OK but he doesn't seem to want it bad enough.
So Pawlenty it is. He's dull an uncharismatic, especially compared to Obama, but if ** IF ** Obama is going to be beatable in 2012 I think the voters will find his dullness refreshing.

Posted by: Sean P at January 28, 2011 10:22 AM (+f/TR)

468 Gabe,

I'd like to propose an ongoing experiment.

You did not include "None of the above," and "No one has my support yet," and stated your reason why. That's fine, and we now have a feel for where people - or at least morons - are, more or less.

Next week, and weekly thereafter, I'd like you to repeat this poll, with possible candidates like Coburn and DeMint added or removed as circumstances warrant. However, you need to also add the "None of the above," and "No one has my support yet," choices.

After two months or so, you'll have the best data on moron choices you could ask for, including depth of support, which can be gleaned by the "None of the above," and "No one has my support yet,"numbers.

You. or Geoff, or someone could even graph this shit. It could be fascinating.

Seriously. Please consider doing this. Hell, give me the keys to the blog and I'll do it. I'm unemployed now, so I'd have plenty of time to learn, practice, and then roll out a poll and supporting analysis on a regular basis. It certainly is a project worth someone's time.

Posted by: President for Life Obama at January 28, 2011 10:22 AM (7+pP9)

469 Does anyone think Palin will even run?

To Jack Staw's point, if she really wanted to be President she would have spent time studying to be President.

I realize that she's 'doing this differently' and I like the idea that she's running against the media rather than Obama, but I'd be surprised if we saw a serious effort from her.

Posted by: MJ at January 28, 2011 10:22 AM (BKOsZ)

470 First time I ever saw video from Egypt where that clown Zawee Hawass was not mugging for the camera.

Heh, I was about to riff on Hawass too. That guy's on every fucking program that even tangentially mentions ancient Egypt.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 28, 2011 10:22 AM (TfJx1)

471 It takes about a gallon of diesel fuel to create a gallon of ethanol..

I'm reading that as a comment on Thune.

Not that I want to turn into his champion or anything, but in that state going against the ethanol sacred cow is tantamount to political suicide.

Posted by: Canadaguy at January 28, 2011 10:23 AM (BXk8J)

472 I see a lot of "Palin can't win" comments.

What I don't see, and why I don't take such comments seriously is-

"Palin can't win but here's the candidate I think can win and why"

Throwing mud isn't be mature or intelligent or whatever....show us your cards, bitches.

By the way, Palin has to win the nomination.

So, she has to prove she's the best choice of those who are running. If she does, then she wins. If she doesn't, then she doesn't win.

In the meantime, show us your cards. If not Palin, then who and why.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2011 10:23 AM (I49Jm)

473 How about Romney/West?I like it, even if it's chief appeal is the disgraceful necessity of negating Obama's only political ace.

Then what about Cain/West?

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 10:23 AM (qzoN5)

474 I'm not saying West because of Obama. I was Army, so I'm just backing my guy. LTC West and all.

Posted by: Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:24 AM (4SKYj)

475 I guess if you want a war with the MFM with the Presidency at stake, Palin would be the way to go.. .

They're already at war with us. It's like asking "if" we want a war with Islamists. We've got one. So we either fight or submit. Palin would be a signal that we are going to fight.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 28, 2011 10:24 AM (JA0WS)

476 f I find anyone defending him, I'll post it...

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 28, 2011 10:13 AM (XdlcF)
Some of the Morons from LA were on here a few weeks ago complaining about the stuff he has done, or not done, in LA. I think he has killed himself for any hope of a nomination.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 10:24 AM (M9Ie6)

477 Drudge thinks the administration was caught off guard by all the unhappiness in the Middle East. There is something interesting going on in Egypt.

Glenn Beck thinks this is not good.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (p302b)

478 Does anyone think Palin will even run?



To Jack Staw's point, if she really wanted to be President she would have spent time studying to be President.



I realize that she's 'doing this differently' and I like the idea that
she's running against the media rather than Obama, but I'd be surprised
if we saw a serious effort from her

I don't think she's going to run, either, but she REALLY needs to shit or get off the pot.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (NjYDy)

479 What do you propose to do about it, in that case? Do you control the media?
Well...for starters you could challenge the squishes whose opinions are shaped by the false narrative.
...those squishes include bloggers and their commenters who cannot give actual concrete examples of real shortcomings of targeted individuals

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (AnTyA)

480 I voted for Sarah Palin. Why? Because she's got balls bigger than the rest of them put together. WTF? Of course it's Palin.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (/f9MS)

481 Romney quit the campaign, after choosing not to run again, then he endorsed the takeover of GM, he saddled the state with Masscare,which was only made worse
by Patrick and the judges. That's not perception that's real, and he's a M A guy, and just like the media scrounged up a ludicrous slander against him, back in '94, they will do so again

Posted by: justin cord at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (2C3OH)

482 The American people put a neophyte into office in 2008 - they aren't going to make that mistake again.
That's the only ray of hope I have after looking at the names on this list.

Posted by: rockhead at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (RykTt)

483 ..she would have spent time studying to be President.
What leads you to believe she hasnt been studying to be President?

Posted by: jwest at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (qeYI9)

484 the perfect ticket would be Palin/West

Probably unbeatable once the two of them get going.

But, the rovians would never let it happen.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (p302b)

485 It has to be a mannequin-looking white guy that we find acceptable. One of us, you know. Don't want to rock the boat too much.Posted by: GOP Establishment at January 28, 2011 10:16 AM (4YUWF)


I tried to tell you guys. We need to talk street. You looked at me like I had two heads when I told you Mitt should wear a sideways baseball cap and say, "Yo!"

Now if you'll excuse me, this GOP credit card I got is only good until the end of the month.

Posted by: Michael Steele at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (TpXEI)

486 I'm just finding it impossible to vote in this poll. I don't know enough about Daniels, Thune, Barbour, or Cain. Hell the only thing I know about TPaw is he's a AGW believer.
I only make this point because the media obviously doesn't cover these guys, and the blogs I visit (this being the main one) don't cover these guys very well. From the MFM and blogs it's damn near All Sarah, All the Time in some way, shape, or form.
Bloggers seem to be stuck in the left's strategy of "defend Sarah/point out the idiocy of the left's smears on her", which is exactly what the few conservative/Republican voices in the MFM get stuck on doing. Bloggers, being the New Media and all, could be a great alternative to break out of the left's control of this battlefield. We could very well win this battle (meaning - be correct that the media is full of shit and wrong), while the left was just fighting a delaying/distracting action with us while going for the bigger target.
(I denounce myself for the warlike rhetoric.)
(Ok, not really)

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (A/oSU)

487 Aw, Mr. GMan can't see the difference between Obama and the potential Rep candidates. Stupid is a hard to remove stain.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (A3oMO)

488 Actually, what little I know of Thune I like. I just do not trust Big Farm. ADM has been bankrolling Sunday leftist propaganda for decades.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (SJ6/3)

489 Mitt is a phony and a total pussy.

He loves MassHealth and is a greasy used car salesman of the worst type.

Get this into your heads: he likes the individual mandate in EbolaCare.

Fuck him sideways.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:26 AM (n0WLs)

490 473. Same answer.

Now, if we can only get beyond the mythology of Reagan being super-conservative, and Palin being demonstrably much more conservative than Romney; Palin has the advantage of being kind of an ink blot test: you see in her what you want, even if there's less actually there.

Posted by: ParisParamus at January 28, 2011 10:27 AM (PxAIw)

491 oh my, the Egyptians seem to not like Al Jazera and CNN.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 10:27 AM (p302b)

492 He is calling in old debts and introducing yet another element of
uncertainty at a time the country is sitting on the edge of yet another
period of unrest. Barr is not exhibiting deep knowledgeor shrewd
judgement in hisactions here. Only a cynic would seek a relationship
with Duvalier.

Circa, I already know what you've expressed. Duvalier "offered" Haiti his services after the disaster first hit.

But "on the edge of yet another period of unrest"? What stability is there that Duvalier is destabilizing in Haiti at the moment? Cannibalism. As per involvement, we both wonder why the hell anyone would touch Haiti, let alone Duvalier, even when possessing the 10-foot poll as legal counsel. Given Barr's political opposition for the globalist dealings from Clinton/Bushes, why should we be surprised that given the fraud of international aid being absconded by elitists, that Barr would look into it from the inside? Getting a big personal paycheck on the case is no coincidental factor. I already made that point. You ask me to answer what possible legitimate reason Barr has for involving himself with Duvalier. And I say that the obvious is not the only factor involved. I say that to castigate guilt without evidence is vigilante lynching, eliminating any jury deliberation. Surely, being impartial requires the willing suspension of either belief or disbelief for the moment.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 10:27 AM (H+LJc)

493 I don't think she's going to run, either, but she REALLY needs to shit or get off the pot.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (NjYDy)
Why? Because everyone else on the list has announced they're running?

Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 10:28 AM (VuLos)

494 418
Ron Paul serves his constituents responsibly according to his Libertarian-Republican view of constitutional governance.

He would be a disaster on foreign policy.

Paul is the one man that I would not vote for in the general.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 10:28 AM (pW2o8)

495 239

First choice Cain, second choice Thune. I would support Palin but I don't think she's electable.


Posted by: Jon at January 28, 2011 09:21 AM (Xt7UU)
Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: grognard at January 28, 2011 10:28 AM (NS2Mo)

496 What I don't see, and why I don't take such comments seriously is-



"Palin can't win but here's the candidate I think can win and why"

Is it possible no one sees a candidate on that list who can win?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2011 10:28 AM (TpXEI)

497 Pawlenty/Palin. When you say it fast it sounds like "Plenty Palin". I'm down with that.

Posted by: anginak at January 28, 2011 10:29 AM (9CAoY)

498 Note to self: don't fuck up your presentation by using a week-old sock.

Posted by: Josef K. at January 28, 2011 10:29 AM (7+pP9)

499 ooo I just read something about the organic folks being really pissed at Vlsack and not wanting to shop at Whole Foods cause they betrayed them. Got to look into this one, sounds interesting to say the least.

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 10:29 AM (p302b)

500 Herman Cain? Why the hell not. That's my pick.

Two reasons:
1) Georgia accent
2) And he's blacker than Obama.

Posted by: David at January 28, 2011 10:29 AM (Woukr)

501 Would vote for and drive people to the polls to vote:
Herman Cain
Mitch Daniels
Rick Perry
Tim Pawlenty
Sarah Palin
John Thune
Gary Johnson

Would hold my nose and vote for in the general:
John Bolton
Ron Paul
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Haley Barbour

Winning would be worse long-term than losing:
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee

Is there anything that can be done about Mitch Daniels' hair? Anything?

Posted by: Morgan at January 28, 2011 10:30 AM (raRpC)

502
As many said, Palin is damaged by the media constantly attacking her, I don't know if the middle would vote for her. She might be able to overcome it, but maybe not. Since our primary follows so far behind Iowa and the others, we don't get to vote for the wide field. It comes down to who has survived the first few rounds.
That's the bad thing about our position in the primaries. Medium sized to big states only get a chance to vote on those deemed"electable" in the small states who go first. I wanted to vote for Ted, but had to vote for my second choice, Romney. And then we end up with Bob Dole redux McCain.
I voted for Herman Cain when he ran for senate here in Georgia. Mainly because when he needs to be, he can be an erudite, yelling, screaming maniac. Instead, we got... meh... Saxby Chambliss who "reaches out." Bleah!
Anyway, as to this time around, Herman Cain is good because hewould be sympathetic to business and the country needs that. In any debate he wouldbitch slap Obama as none of the others could. Finally,has within his power, the freedom to that none of the other candidates have. When Obama starts spouting his platitudes, his empty promisies and vapid rhetoric. Cain is the only candidate who can turn to him and say, "N###'a, please!"
Sucha glorousmoment is worth great sacrifice to attain.
(So, who wants a Hermain Cain button?...)

Posted by: Warthog at January 28, 2011 10:30 AM (WDySP)

503 oh it can't be Pawlenty/Palin...it would have to be Palin/Pawlenty but the libs/dems/MFM would have a field day with the pee pee ticket...

Posted by: curious at January 28, 2011 10:30 AM (p302b)

504 Run like an Egyptian.

Posted by: The Bangles at January 28, 2011 10:31 AM (SJ6/3)

505 These results are depressing.. Hello to 4 more years Teh Won...

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:32 AM (f9c2L)

506
Been lurking and occasionally commenting here for a long time. This IS one of the premier sites to check, imho, for anyone with a modicum of interest in current political events.

It's dismaying to read the vituperation heaped on Palin--you can find that on any left-tilting blog. With just about as much relevance.

I don't see any of the detractors saying "well, I went to her Facebook, web site,etc, and read the positions she's posited, and she's nuts". What IS evident is buying into the MFM shit, or the tepid " I love her but (insert your preference here). I guess you can argue all day about qualifications, electability and experience, that's fine.

My question here is--if Palin DOES decide to run, and subsequently wins the nomination, will you whole-heartedly support her?

Posted by: irongrampa at January 28, 2011 10:32 AM (ud5dN)

507 I disagree. I'm guilty of that
dreaded sin, being a social con. I wouldn't vote for either of them.
They will certainly attract many who give weight to some social issues,
but that can be easily countered by a candidate that is pro-life and
isn't openly hostile to religion ad marriage.

Posted by: Blue Hen
---------
Blue Hen - Are you saying if that was the ticket, you would stay home and not vote??

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:33 AM (f9c2L)

508 To Jack Staw's point, if she really wanted to be President she would have spent time studying to be President. I think somebody else was absent that day too.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 10:33 AM (FIDMq)

509 Electability is the stupidest reason to vote for/against anyone outside of "looks".

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 09:30 AM (M9Ie6)
Jib!

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 28, 2011 10:33 AM (JA0WS)

510 We need someone who understands how a free market economy works and isn't afraid to explain it to our idiot masses, someone who is unafraid to take on the union/democrat corruption, someone whois articulate, someone who can battle an unprofessional media who is in the tankwith the democrat party,and someone whowill attract not only the hard-right but the precious middle/independent vote.
Someone who can make Obama look like the over-rated blow-hard all talk/all socialist/fake Reaganthat he is, after unmasking our pathetic in-the-tank media.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 28, 2011 10:34 AM (0fzsA)

511 505 These results are depressing.. Hello to 4 more years Teh Won...
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:32 AM (f9c2L)

It really is the most likely outcome. And it sucks.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 10:34 AM (tJjm/)

512 Sarah. Good lookin', nice ta-ta's and she enrages all the right people. Oh, and she's a Reagan conservative. What is not to like? Don't believe the progs who say she's not electable....

Posted by: nikkolai at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (RuGDD)

513 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 09:23 AM (NjYDy)
Dude, chill. Maybe you should qualify what you mean by qualify, because one can be qualified to be elected for a position (which I don't even believethe Indonesian Imbecile is qualified, if so he should provide the proof) but not qualified to do a good job. And that is relative and subjective. The Left thinks Obama is doing a good job of bringingfascist Amerikkka down to its knees.

Posted by: Minuteman at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (/3GFM)

514 Daniels because of his truce on the cultural issues. We don't have to fight that battle from the White House -- or from Washington D.C. at all.

Posted by: arhooley at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (OguJW)

515 CNN has better Egypt coverage then Fox. There is news beyond politics.

Posted by: The Bangles at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (SJ6/3)

516 We should have a rule that says you can only tell us what's good about your favorites, not what sucks about ours.

The would cut down on the flamage, you cocksuckers.

Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (GTbGH)

517 My question here is--if Palin DOES decide to run, and subsequently wins the nomination, will you whole-heartedly support her?


Posted by: irongrampa
----
Why bother? I would vote for her, of course. But she will lose. So, there won't be any "whole-hearted" anything..

There's a difference between a long-shot and a no-shot. Palin is a no-shot. Enough people (including a lot of conservative.. many of them women) who will not bother going to the polls if she is the candidate.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:37 AM (f9c2L)

518 We need someone who understands how a free market economy works and isn't afraid to explain it to our idiot masses, someone who is unafraid to take on the union/democrat corruption, someone who is articulate, someone who can battle an unprofessional media who is in the tank with the democrat party, and someone who will attract not only the hard-right but the precious middle/independent vote.

Someone who can make Obama look like the over-rated blow-hard all talk/all socialist/fake Reagan that he is, after unmasking our pathetic in-the-tank media.



Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 28, 2011 10:34 AM (0fzsA)

Yes, Sarah Palin has been doing that for the last 18 months.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:37 AM (n0WLs)

519 I'll make this point again. The media wants Palin to win.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:37 AM (wuv1c)

520 @267 The main deal is, the first American black President will serve two terms just because he was the first acknowledged non white to serve in this position. If Sarah Palin was elected America would hear whinin' for the next eight years just like we did/do with G. W. Bush from the left. Government would come to a standstill while these liberal idiots throw a major tantrum much like two year olds who have been scolded.

*****************
But when people make that argument about "first black president" it really is only half-true, since he is only half-black/half-white. So he doesn't really score on that point, only the MSM doesn't seem to recognize his non-allblackness.... Like everything else about that man, it's all show/shadows/mirrors/hype/nonsense. Ugh...

Posted by: evensickerofObama at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (FjK/J)

521 A place where terrorist bombs don't explode on our subways every two weeks because a Republican dismantled our security operations, thank you very much.
Posted by: Lou at January 28, 2011 09:56 AM (IH3P2)

Right. Those bombs aren't going off due to Zero's unwavering committment to our national security. Gotcha.
Bullshit, BTW.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (OlN4e)

522 The problem with the list??? ALL longterm Professional Politicians.
And the only one who speaks with any clarity on issues is Sarah....
So, of this list? Sarah... but I'm still looking.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (AdK6a)

523 What, am I dead to you now, or something?

You know you want me.

Posted by: Charlie Crist at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (AZGON)

524 no Paul Ryan?

Sarah then

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (08Pe8)

525 I think somebody else was absent that day too.
---------------------
Not one of my best sentences, but you get the point.

Posted by: MJ at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (BKOsZ)

526 I thought Barry was only 7% negro.

Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 10:38 AM (GTbGH)

527 Palin/Pawlenty sounds like a good ticket too.

Pee pee'd up is more exciting than wee wee'd up. WTF was that anyway?

"Palin Plenty 2012". Woo hoo here we come,

Posted by: anginak at January 28, 2011 10:39 AM (9CAoY)

528 We should have a rule that says you can only tell us what's good about your favorites, not what sucks about ours.

The would cut down on the flamage, you cocksuckers.
Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (GTbGH)

Ah, the scent of elderberries.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:39 AM (n0WLs)

529 No Tommy Thompson? Clearly this is not the AoSHQ I remember from 4 years ago.

Posted by: BlameCandida at January 28, 2011 10:39 AM (ujuTV)

530 Palin/Cheney.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:39 AM (SJ6/3)

531 Daniels because of his truce on the cultural issues. We don't have to
fight that battle from the White House -- or from Washington D.C. at
all.

Hear, hear!

Posted by: Dr. Gosnell, abortion specialist/hero at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (TpXEI)

532 But this returns us to the crux of this thread. Are we asking people for
their ideal candidate? ?r are we asking a bunch of Morons who they
think is likely to run, and of them, who is most electable?

Well, we were given a list that seems to be missing some people, so it's not the former. I think there's a decent chance Perry will allow himself to be convinced to run. Unlike Christie, Perry would not be leaving his state in the lurch, so the negative of him saying he wasn't running and then changing his mind is not that bad.

From the list presented, I chose based on who I thought was experienced enough, accomplished, enough, and conservative enough -- but I did so based on the assumption that that person was willing to address the things that negatively impact electability.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (pW2o8)

533 Sarah all the way. The media *does not* want her to win, otherwise they'd be pawing adoringly at her like they do with romney and pawlenty, etc.
If Sarah runs against Obama, she will DEFEAT him.
Leftists are terrified of that, so they run polls, op-eds, etc to try and discredit and discourage.

SARAH 2012

Cheers,
Blake

Posted by: Blake Flint at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (Gct5y)

534 My question here is--if Palin DOES decide to run, and subsequently wins the nomination, will you whole-heartedly support her?
Yes.
I would campaign for her and do whatever I could, however I would do so knowing it was a losing proposition.
I would vote for anyone against Obama, but I would prefer to vote for the most conservative person who has a shot at winning.
We keep forgetting that the Media has gone nuts. 2012 is going to look more like their Tucson shooting coverage than 2008 campaign coverage. Also, keep in mind it is hard to unseat a president.
In the past 40 years we've had 4 presidents serve two terms

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (wuv1c)

535 oh yeah...

BOOM
stocks dropping

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (08Pe8)

536 Note to self: don't fuck up your presentation by using a week-old sock.
Oh, so you want to be better than the rest of us, eh?

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 28, 2011 10:41 AM (XdlcF)

537 How about a line for "None of the Above"? Huckabee is a joke. Romney and Gulianni are RINOs. Gingrich is a has-been; we've had enough Bob Doles and John McCains; I don't trust him after the way he treated his wife. Palin is a possibility, but I'm not enthusiastic about another "historic first," electing a woman after the black-skinned creep Obama. Pawlenty maybe, but since he's squishy on gun control I wonder what else about the Constitution he considers discretionary.

I would be wildly enthusiastic about General Petraeus.

Posted by: Tulsa Jack at January 28, 2011 10:42 AM (fb1fy)

538 Palin/Cain or Palin/Perry or Palin/Bolton or Palin/Christie.

Posted by: texette at January 28, 2011 10:42 AM (beZqk)

539 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011
You continuallyuse hyperbolic and unsubstatiated claims as your argument. Again, who are these HUGE MASSES that were turned off by Palin using the term WTF? Did you see a poll on it?
The other day you made the claim that the conservative big money people-using your terminology and emphasis- FUCKING.HATE.HER.GUTS.
Well, I personally am acquainted withand am related to through extended family ties some very wealthy and influential people who not only have given to her PAC but also want to see her run. Some here would probably recognize the names of whomI am talking about. Well actually I KNOW some here would recognize the names.
Can you name the individuals you were so confident in referring to?

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 10:42 AM (AnTyA)

540 @496

Is it possible no one sees a candidate on that list who can win?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2011 10:28 AM (TpXEI)

Go beyond the list.

If Palin's electoral death, then who's your pick and why?

For instance, I didn't see Perry, Christie, or Jindal on the list. All would be good. All have their weaknesses.

I like them all. But, so far, only Christie has demonstrated Palin's willingness to fight and the ability to set the terms of political debate in a clear and down to earth way that resonates with people.

So, show us your cards.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2011 10:42 AM (I49Jm)

541 Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (wuv1c)

Wow, you're going to be great for morale at Campaign Headquarters.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:42 AM (n0WLs)

542

515
CNN has better Egypt coverage then Fox. There is news beyond politics.


Posted by: The Bangles at January 28, 2011 10:36 AM (SJ6/3)
Will some cob-logger plz put a fork in this thread? Arguing about Sarah Palin is getting pretty farking stale.

Egypt would be worth talking about.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 10:43 AM (7+pP9)

543 CNN has better Egypt coverage then Fox. There is news beyond politics.
To be honest, PBS has some of the best foreign news coverage around, it tends to be facts only presentations, unfortunately they can't do the same for domestic news.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:43 AM (wuv1c)

544 471
It takes about a gallon of diesel fuel to create a gallon of ethanol..I'm reading that as a comment on Thune.

--

Yeah, that position is basically just one you have to have in some states, just like Reid has to be for guns or Christie has to be for gun control.

I believe we had ethanol in Indiana as well and I thought that Daniels was for it. (Yep, just checked - he called for more use of ethanol in gas in July 2009.)

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 10:43 AM (pW2o8)

545 Some of the Morons from LA were on here a few weeks ago complaining about the stuff he has done, or not done, in LA. I think he has killed himself for any hope of a nomination.
Yeh, some or all of that of that was from me, so I hope I'm not making it seems worse than it is...

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 28, 2011 10:43 AM (XdlcF)

546 I would be wildly enthusiastic about General Petraeus.

What? Why? He is emphatically apolitical. No idea what we'd be getting.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 10:43 AM (qzoN5)

547 I expected a flamewar here but Brian is busy on the headline thread trying to start one with maddog.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 10:43 AM (M9Ie6)

548 Yes, Sarah Palin has been doing that for the last 18 months.

No she hasn't. Seriously - she hasn't. She has been speaking bromides, simple generalities. She 'endorsed' Paul Ryan's plan; do you *honestly* think she's read it and grasped it on a detailed level? Of course not! She probably scanned it (or read what others were saying about it) and said: okay, I'll endorse that.

And this goes to the core of my problem with Sarah Palin. I honestly doubt she understands that much about economics beyond the level of platitudes (i.e. "taxes = bad; spending = bad"). Her level of understanding is probably that of McCain, who famously said he didn't understand the subject. If that.

Sure, she can hire policy staffers to write nice Facebook posts for her, but it's obvious that she isn't involved in the composition of that material, given her inability to EVER, ONCE talk on a level of complexity and detail about it during an interview.

And if I'm wrong, and she is secretly a policy wonk on the level of a Clinton, or Daniels, or Pawlenty...or even if she's capable of FAKING that sort of wonkery (the way, sadly, Obama is able to do), then why hasn't she? She must know that this is the sort of thing that would make people like me love her, that would make swing voters gravitate towards her as a strong, intelligent authority. Instead, it's all platitudes...nothing whatsoever evincing a deeper understanding.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:44 AM (NjYDy)

549 1. John Bolton
2. Sarah Palin
3. Jim Demint
2-3 are interchangeable as VP

Posted by: Big T Party at January 28, 2011 10:44 AM (FfyYt)

550 Palin. She is a leader. She has the ability to move debate, she is an optimist. She perserveres which inspires. She believes in the individual moves this country to greatness. She can turn a blue state red, can't wait 'till she campaigns in Michigan. She loves the union workforce and knows they love America but are stuck with leftist leaders. She knows the oil business, which we are economically dependent on and she fully understands our lack of supply is a national security issue. Which fully ties into the middle east problems. She is a friend of Israel and understands the importance they are to the region. She knows History and is able to articulate the importance as it relates to todays issues. She is able to articulate the frustrations of the common folk. She knows how corrupt the system has become and on a smaller scale, fought both parties corruption and succeeded. She refuses to play the good ole boys games, meaning she is for this great country not for a party. She says what needs to be said, while others cower afraid of making a mistake and disrupting their "candidacy".

Both the leftist and Elite Repubs hate her. In my humble opinion they are the same.





Posted by: lions at January 28, 2011 10:45 AM (lW97b)

551 Given Barr's political opposition for the globalist dealings from Clinton/Bushes, why should we be surprised that given the fraud of international aid being absconded by elitists, that Barr would look into it from the inside?
Maverick, come on. Now you're telling me Barr is playing secret squirrel?
Give it a rest.
Also, if you are looking for impartiality, once again you are in the wrong place. I'll remind you that you are the one lobbed Barr's name out there. You took that tack that pointing out his past actions is unfair...or something. He is, in reality, a hack.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 28, 2011 10:45 AM (B+qrE)

552 The folks pushing West: do you really think he's ready?

If we're going to pull from that crop of newbies, I'd rather draft Rubio. I think that even now he'd clobber Obama.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 10:45 AM (pW2o8)

553 She probably scanned it (or read what others were saying about it) and said: okay, I'll endorse that.

With insight like that, you're almost qualified to work for MSNBC.

Posted by: Bomber at January 28, 2011 10:45 AM (qzoN5)

554 Are people so narrow minded that they would rather re-elect the communist than vote for Palin? BHO was a blank slate in 08(still is if you ask me) but the mask is off and we see where he wants to take us. The everybody is ok with that? I dont get it.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 10:45 AM (FIDMq)

555 Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM (wuv1c) Wow, you're going to be great for morale at Campaign Headquarters.
heh. I know. i wouldn't say it aloud, but I would be thinking it.
I'm going to do work for whomever wins the primary, I just would prefer it to be someone who could win.
I think we honestly have the potential to flip states like Michigan and other formally blue states. I just don't see Palin doing that.
Not because she is too conservative but because she is Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 10:45 AM (wuv1c)

556 O'Dumbass should call a hookah summit in Cairo.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:46 AM (SJ6/3)

557 I disagree. I'm guilty of that dreaded sin, being a social con. I wouldn't vote for either of them. They will certainly attract many who give weight to some social issues, but that can be easily countered by a candidate that is pro-life and isn't openly hostile to religion and marriage.Posted by: Blue Hen---------Blue Hen - Are you saying if that was the ticket, you would stay home and not vote??
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

And excellent question. I meant that in the context of this vote, today. Would I stay home or vote Dem if this was the ticket in 2012? No. I thought that I proved that when I voted for Castle in the Delaware Senate primary. I then rallied behind the winner of the primary. Which is something that many people, including many here, deliberately did not do.

As I had noted above, it would be helpul to frame this question. People are framing this in different ways. Right now, we are the proverbial 10 blind men describing an elephant (pun intended)

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 10:46 AM (R2fpr)

558 Can we also assume that the Senate will flip like Guam for the Repubs in 2012? At this point, I dont see any way the Dems can take back the House. The races to watch would be
- FloridaTrending far more R, so long as we can find a top-flight candidate to go against one of the Nelsons
- MichiganDebbie Stabenow will face Pete Hoekstra, who has good name recognition and polls well
- MissouriClaire McCaskillnuff said.
- MontanaNorthern Northern California may break our hearts again and will probably go with Testes
- NebraskaIf Nelson can keep the natives plied with ethanol and healthcare waivers, he may cruise to victory
- North DakotaHelmet head isnt running, this goes to the Rs
- Ohio the slogan writes itself what Brown isnt doing for you.
- PennsylvaniaBob Casey can only get stupider on the campaign trail
- VirginiaGeorge Allen is coming back and will be playing for keeps; Webb will probably not run at this point, so Lean R
- WisconsinHerb Kohl doesnt run again, and the LaFollett Repubs are running strong

And screw Washington state, WV, Vermont, Minnesota, and Maryland where the Dem machines will turn out in force on election day. Christine ODonnell is welcome to run in DE again and cast a spell on the electorate.

If we can get some top of the ticket push in some of these states, even if we dont dislodge Obama, we can get some Rs elected to the Senate.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 10:47 AM (8lCJT)

559 Sarah cannot and will not win... Actually, the list is pretty depressing. I mean Newt???? Please. The old guard should go away. And how many of those individuals will take on the banks and the Federal Reserve? I count one.

Posted by: Mary at January 28, 2011 10:48 AM (4dpZM)

560 Bolton! Don't give me the line "he can;t win" - I want to see him run! He would elevate the debate higher than it has ever been!

Posted by: Robin at January 28, 2011 10:48 AM (VY112)

561 Ah, the scent of elderberries.

Would you like to come in for a glass of elderberry wine?

Posted by: The Brewster sisters at January 28, 2011 10:48 AM (tf9Ne)

562 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:44 AM (NjYDy)
Question is, as PRESIDENT, does the country need a Policy wonk?
Or does the country need someone who can point the way...
Reagan was never a policy wonk... while folks like LBJ wre...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 28, 2011 10:49 AM (AdK6a)

563 Will some cob-logger plz put a fork in this thread? Arguing about Sarah Palin is getting pretty farking stale.
Egypt would be worth talking about.
Agreed. Let's hi-jack it. What's a cob-logger. Sounds nasty.
Not to make this thread any more depressing, but I'm not really looking forward to how good ol' Bambi handles a new string of fundamentalist Islamic states if the dominos continue to fall.

Posted by: rockhead at January 28, 2011 10:49 AM (RykTt)

564 Well, there is one intriguing way of looking at this: Someone pointed out that Obama never, ever seems to dip below 40% in the approval polls. And with even the tiniest seemingly "good" news, he immediately goes back up over 50%. If this holds true in 2012, we are boned and he WILL be reelected. In that case, 2012 for the GOP should be about laying the groundwork for 2016. Goldwater lost, but he paved the way for Reagan. Palin's nomination in 2012 could pave the way for a future Reagan...
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 09:28 AM (tJjm/)
That 50% approval rating needs to be checked State by State, since the electoral systemworks that way. So that 50% number is suspect regarding theJugeared Messiah'sre-election.Without looking at how those numbers are composed and what they mean, I would treatthat figureas propaganda promoted by the biased media.

Posted by: Minuteman at January 28, 2011 10:49 AM (/3GFM)

565 Posted by: Dr. Gosnell, abortion specialist/hero at January 28, 2011 10:40 AM

Sigh. That's it. Get into a culture war instead of simply enforcing the law.

Posted by: arhooley at January 28, 2011 10:50 AM (OguJW)

566 My two litmus tests for 2012 are:
1. Can the candidate win?
2. Will the candidate vote to repeal ObamaCare?

By those two standards, Palin and Romney are out. And Huckabee too, because we know he won't repeal it, just replace it with some other sort of statist feel-good "compassionate conservative" tripe. Newt is out, he can't be trusted at this point.

I voted for Daniels because (a) he is an accomplished governor with a record of lowering taxes and cutting spending; (b) he comes from a state that is not deep deep red so he has some crossover appeal; and (c) traditionally, presidents are former governors. If he wants to call a truce on divisive social issues - fine. Use the budget instead to implement social policy by, say, eliminating subsidies for Planned Parenthood, instead of having a shouting match over the topic of abortion per se.

But really folks - We have to win in 2012. We don't have the luxury of nominating the purest of the pure if that person just can't win. If we don't win in 2012 then ObamaCare stays in place forever and no entitlement is ever repealed. We will be on the fast track to European basket case status. The moment is now for electing someone who has an actual mandate to curb the statist overreach. If not then all our future candidates will just become caretakers for the welfare state, because that's the only type of candidate who can win support from anything like a majority of voters, who all will get entitlements in one form or another.

Posted by: chemjeff has high speed rail in his pants at January 28, 2011 10:50 AM (czcue)

567 Hmmm, "protesters" burning the main police station at the Suez Canal. Not some mindless rabble here and clearly not concerned about the effect of thaton the economic viability of the country.
Storm's comin'.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 10:50 AM (A/oSU)

568 Video: Rep. Allen West reacts to Keith Olbermann getting fired

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 10:52 AM (sZ+lP)

569 I wonder how many Islamofascist dictatorships will flip?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:52 AM (SJ6/3)

570 Sarah. Good lookin', nice ta-ta's and she enrages all the right people. Oh, and she's a Reagan conservative.
You might want to review the definition of conservativeversus populist.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 28, 2011 10:52 AM (cqv5O)

571 500+ comments on an early morning thread?

You sure know how to play them Allahpundit err.. Malor.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 28, 2011 10:52 AM (iSmDI)

572 If we're going to pull from that crop of newbies, I'd rather draft Rubio. I think that even now he'd clobber Obama. - or Rob Johnson

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 10:52 AM (wgkZv)

573 517 My question here is--if Palin DOES decide to run, and subsequently wins the nomination, will you whole-heartedly support her?
Posted by: irongrampa

Honeslty, a dumb question.

Of COURSE I would - I whole-heartedly supported McCain against the Socialist... the problem was, McCain kept forgetting that Obama was his opponent, and chided his own supporters (like that old lady) for fearing a commie in the White House. And even suspended his own Presidential campaign, making him look stoopid and impulsive and aimless (all of which he is, of course). It was like he was a member of the Obama campaign staff or somethin'.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 10:53 AM (tJjm/)

574 tell ya who I definitely won't vote for - Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, if you vote for any of those three you may as well vote for a Dem. because all three of them will foist progressivism on us at a rate only slightly less than Obama.
whoever the nominee is they have to be a real conservative and not a phony conservative like GWB.
will I sit home and let Obama be re-elected?
that's up to GOP establishment, are they going to allow a true conservative to have the nomination?
if they don't then I stay home, if they do I hit the phones and the streets.

Posted by: Shoey at January 28, 2011 10:53 AM (ehKDD)

575 With insight like that, you're almost qualified to work for MSNBC.

Can you point me to any interview where she talks, at length, about what it is in the Ryan Roadmap that she likes? Where she addresses the deep cuts to entitlement spending and the fiscal restructuring of the Federal government outlined therein? Because until you do, I will stand by my assessment that she merely "endorsed" the Ryan plan as something that sounds appealing without really investigating it.

And here's why I think I'm correct: it would MAJORLY redound to her credit if she were to go 'wonk out' about something like this, go have an interview (even with Sean Hannity, or some friendly type, I don't care) where she talks in detail about the economic ins and outs of that plan, or our current situation. It would make a lot of people suddenly turn on a dime (myself included). Then she would be a candidate with 'star power' (however dimmed) who had intellectual heft to match, as opposed to what she is now, which is a celebritician.

Look, Ace made this point in another thread: when people like us say "Palin is unelectable," what we're really saying is "she's unelectable, but that's the *nicest* reason I can cite for opposing her. The other reason is that I don't think she's up to the job intellectually or experientially." That's what Ace said, and I pretty much agree with it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (NjYDy)

576 As far as Egypt is concerned I think Gaddafi has got to be shaking in his boots right now.

How about the Sinai how long will Israel sit this one out. I have to believe they will not let the muslim brotherhood hold the Sinai.

Posted by: lions at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (lW97b)

577 Sarah. Good lookin', nice ta-ta's and she enrages all the right people.

Trouble is, enraged people are more likely to go and vote.

Oh, and... you ain't getting anywhere close to said ta-ta's, so they are irrelevant.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (tJjm/)

578 Palin is running away with this unscientific poll.

Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (GTbGH)

579 What? No zombie Reagan?

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (pRKLf)

580 554
Are people so narrow minded that they would rather re-elect the communist than vote for Palin?

So far the only folks who've said they're sitting out the general were me (if the nominee was Ron Paul 9actually, I'd vote 3rd party or write-in)); a couple of folks who loathe Huckabee; and some pro-Palin people who loathe RINOs.

Has someone actually said they'd sit out the general if Palin got the nod? I may have missed it, but I haven't seen it. Certainly not a big fraction of the "sit outs" on this thread.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (pW2o8)

581 Donald Trump... he's made a carreer of going Bankrupt, then coming out stronger! Which is what theUS is looking at!
\/snark.... or... crap... maybe not...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (AdK6a)

582 The water canon has to be an improvement over third world foot and ass.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (SJ6/3)

583 While sacred integrity...

Look, you already get it. I've done every one of their squeakholes. Except Herman Cain. Even I have my pride.

Posted by: Will Folks at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (AZGON)

584 >>Romney quit the campaign, after choosing not to run again, then he endorsed the takeover of GM, he saddled the state with Masscare,which was only made worse
by Patrick and the judges. That's not perception that's real, and he's a M& A guy, and just like the media scrounged up a ludicrous slander against him, back in '94, they will do so again

No, actually it's not true. Some of you bitch and moan about people getting their facts from the msm yet it seems many here do the exact same thing.

Mitt left the race when it was clear that he had no mathematical shot at the nomination. He said when he did that it was time to get behind the obvious nominee and help him try to beat Obama which is exactly what he did in numerous campaign appearances. It was Huck who stayed in the race long after it was clear he was just on a vanity tour and forced McCain to keep running against him instead of devoting time and energy to the general. Thats the fact.

Romney never supported the auto bailouts and in fact was a vocal opponent. He wrote a very clear piece in the NYT times to this effect and made numerous television appearances condemning it in the most clear of terms. Don't waste your time googling for some evidence of him supporting it because you won't find it. He said during the campaign that he did support the federal gov't helping the displaced workers in MI with job retraining and the like and those who bought into the flip flop crap decided that this is was a flip flop demonstrating not Romney's dishonesty but their own.

The health care plan he proposed, which looks nothing like what we are living with now, was twisted out of recognition by a veto proof senate and house. It was an attempt at the state level to reign some of the most out of control health care costs in the nation. It hasn't worked Romney does need to do a better job of explaining the situation.

I supported Romney last time, undecided at this point. Mitch Daniels is the most interesting to me at this point so no, I'm not a Mitt bot. It would help though if people on our side actually knew the facts.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2011 10:56 AM (TMB3S)

585 Except Herman Cain. Even I have my pride.

Herman turned you down huh?

Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 10:56 AM (GTbGH)

586 As much as McCain was an impulsive douche, I dont think theres any way he would have signed up for that stimulus package had he been elected. He did have bona fides on keeping our budget in line.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 10:57 AM (8lCJT)

587 And this goes to the core of my problem with Sarah Palin. I honestly doubt she understands that much about economics beyond the level of platitudes (i.e. "taxes = bad; spending = bad"). Her level of understanding is probably that of McCain, who famously said he didn't understand the subject. If that.
Shyeah...she was involved in complex energy policy and negotiation as governor of AK...but she's too stupid to read and absorbthe few dozen pages of Ryan's Roadmap.
...and more ridiculous is ascribing to Palin McCains self-avered shortcomings

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 10:57 AM (AnTyA)

588 I couldn't ever check the box for Fuckabee. I couldn't. I weep for this fucking country if the media nudges him into candidacy.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 28, 2011 10:58 AM (JA0WS)

589 >>>>Abortion, it is the single social issue that destroys
candidates on both sides and will prevent most of the independent women
from voting for Palin.>>>
Palin nominated a pro-abortion judge to the Alaskan Supreme Court.

They (independent women) wont' care. They already think she's a dunce and won't reform their opinion enough to vote for her. I work with lots of educated women (RN, BSN, MBA, etc) I think a couple out politeness won't skewer her. The others are vicious. They HATE her.

I'd like to think of a scenario where Palin could win the independents, but the MSM has ruined that.

People's opinion of her are already set in stone.

Posted by: some wench at January 28, 2011 10:58 AM (bqjJT)

590 "No she hasn't. Seriously - she hasn't. She has been speaking bromides, simple generalities. She 'endorsed' Paul Ryan's plan; do you *honestly* think she's read it and grasped it on a detailed level? Of course not! She probably scanned it (or read what others were saying about it) and said: okay, I'll endorse that."

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:44 AM (NjYDy)

Pure conjecture asserted as fact.

Try again.

Posted by: eman at January 28, 2011 10:58 AM (n0WLs)

591 Reagan was never a policy wonk... while folks like LBJ wre..

Reagan was a major wonk. Amazingly, you're falling for the narrative about Reagan sold to you by the MSM: amiable, inspiring dunce. Reagan was a near-genius in every sense of the word, with both rhetorical AND intellectual AND poltical skills to match. (He also wasn't a super-duper true-blue conservative, despite post-facto mythmaking, but who cares about that right now?) Reagan had a command of the issues that rivaled any of his contemporaries, and combined that with an ability to speak in a down-home nonthreatening manner that occasionally soared to the level of inspiration.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:59 AM (NjYDy)

592 What hits 600 first, the post count in this thread or protest casualties in Egypt?

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord (respecting our national DNR order) at January 28, 2011 10:59 AM (GBXon)

593 I'd go with Palin first, Cain second.

We have a lot of new, young blood in the party so I believe we are on an upswing. The Dems are all old or getting old and decrepit. They have nothing in the wings.

Posted by: mpfs at January 28, 2011 11:00 AM (iYbLN)

594 Thread count.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:00 AM (SJ6/3)

595 Reagan was never a policy wonk...
----------------
Facepalm.

Posted by: MJ at January 28, 2011 11:00 AM (BKOsZ)

596 We need someone who can communicate clearly to combat the lofty, empty Obama rhetoric. Someone who can speak like Christie, and who also can appeal to independents. Not Romney, not Palin. I hope Palin stays out and helps to drive the election towards the R candidate. I don't think she is running anyway- she never would have made the WTF interview if she was. Guliani- too much history. Cain- won't have enough name recognition. Gingrich- way to much history. Huckabee- please God, no. Ron Paul- too controversial. Romney- no chance- imagine the ads that connect him to Obamacare.

We need a candidate that presents as a mature adult, with clear ideas and specific messages to showcase how empty and childish Obama and his rhetoric is. We need someone who can speak clearly, but with care not to incite, so that independents are drawn to the person. We need someone who will challenge Obama when he makes a lofty statement about just what exactly he means and then who has a great plan in place to clearly state. People want to feel they are not being lied to, that a trustworthy adult is watching out for them, that radical people are not stealthily trying to make fundamental changes to our country, and that their opinions are being respected. We need a candidate in his fifties who can showcase what a ridiculous child Obama actually is.

Posted by: Timwi at January 28, 2011 11:00 AM (Sxt4Z)

597 I voted for Daniels because (a) he is an accomplished governor with a
record of lowering taxes and cutting spending; (b) he comes from a state
that is not deep deep red so he has some crossover appeal

I dunno. It's pretty conservative. It's what I'd call an "ag conservative" state, which is to say they're happy to gobble up funding from the feds in farm subsidies. The dems tend to be union/blue-collar types, not "progressive liberals". It usually goes red in Presidential elections. Both houses are controlled by Republicans. Yeah, they had a Dem governor a decade or so ago, but he was sort of a machine-style democrat, not a progressive.

In fact, I think the fact that Daniels won by such a large margin in 2008 but the state still flipped blue shows he has no coat-tails and no ability to spread the conservative message to independents.


I'd vote for him, but I don't think he'd win.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:00 AM (pW2o8)

598 What I like about Sarah:
She is consistantly conservative.
She is a fighter and never backs down or gets intimidated.
She is honest in her views.
She hunts and fishes.
She is damn good looking.
What I don't like about Sarah:
She does reality TV.
She is shrill at times.
She does not seem to realize the liberal press will go to any length to make her look bad.
Her kids are a liability, not an asset, but I do tend to admire her loyalty to friends and family.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (OlN4e)

599 287
Its a very depressing list. None of these people will beat Obama, who for all his incompetence now has the gravitas of being president for 4 years.
Posted by: Canadaguy at January 28, 2011 09:33 AM (BXk8J)
When 2012 rolls around and gas pricesaregreater than $6 a gallon, Islamists are spreading in the Middle Eastfrom Tunisia to Turkey, Obamacare is still on the books, theTax Cut Extension is due tolapse, inflation heats up, the housing market is still in the toilet,and unemployment is still around 9.5%, Obama willpossess all the gravitas Jimmy Carter had from being president for 4 yearsback in 1980.

Posted by: Minuteman at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (/3GFM)

600 The other reason is that I don't think she's up to
the job intellectually or experientially." That's what Ace said, and I
pretty much agree with it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (NjYDy)
That citizen government thing really must suck for you two arrogant fucking geniuses. Sooner or later you latter day Clark Cliffords show your hands. I applaud your honesty if nothing else.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (olKiY)

601 Has someone actually said they'd sit out the general if Palin got the nod? I may have missed it, but I haven't seen it. Certainly not a big fraction of the "sit outs" on this thread. Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 10:55 AM (pW2o

Enough people (including a lot of conservative.. many of them women) who will not bother going to the polls if she is the candidate.Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:37 AM (f9c2L)
FWIW - which is what I was commenting on.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (FIDMq)

602 I could vote for Jack Daniels.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (SJ6/3)

603 Can you point me to any interview where she talks, at length, about what it is in the Ryan Roadmap that she likes? Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (NjYDy)
Will a WSJ article do?

http://tinyurl.com/4fsobp5


Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 11:02 AM (VuLos)

604 6 PM in Egypt

11 AM in Washington DC

Has Obama answered the phone yet?

Posted by: Doc at January 28, 2011 11:02 AM (PMnLO)

605 SP - Unless someone else can turn up the heat and stop being the whitest, most gush polite person in the room.

I don't know if she can really carry the Primaries, though, since I imagine there's still a lot of a' squawking and a' squabbling and a' "Why doesn't MSM love me!?!" in the inner ranks still.

Posted by: William at January 28, 2011 11:02 AM (+zM6M)

606 One of the previous commentators said it best with something like, if we nominate Palin, then the election will be about her and not about the issues. I don't think she wants it to be like that, but that's the sad fact of media exposure in this country. And I think that the Tucson reporting is a foretaste of exactly what would happen.

Also, I think with Palin you'd have a net zero in terms of turnout, since the Left hates her so much. The Dem base would be just as motivated to defeat her as the Reb base would have her to win. Come to think of it, they might be even more so, since there are a lot of conservative Reps who are turned off by her.

So, if you've got a net zero in terms of your base, then the question hinges on independents. This could go two ways. Either independents get so turned off by the obvious crazy media bias against her that they'd be willing to vote for her, or they just get pissed off at hearing all the vitriolic minutiae and blame her "sucking all the air out of the room" (when it's really the media's fault for the constant barrage). I think the latter is more correct.


Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 28, 2011 11:03 AM (Y5I9o)

607 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (NjYDy)
I'm with ya, but does it really matter? Obama is no more an intellectual power than Palin - that guy knows fuckall about jackshit. The media will still play him to be the second coming of Christ and Socrates, and no matter how smart the Repub nominee is - s/he will be portrayed as a Neanderthal.
Bush43 certainly wasn't considered an intellectual giant by anyone, but he was still elected - twice. What is it that Sarah Palin's average intelligence is going to screw up worse than Obama's?
Honestly, I find the "SP is damaged goods from the media's attacks" argument more persuasive.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 11:03 AM (A/oSU)

608 When the abortion issue comes up I suggest the Republican candidate just point to Dr. Kermit Gosnell and say this is what you think is safe and legal?

Posted by: mpfs at January 28, 2011 11:03 AM (iYbLN)

609 I'd be willing to support Romney because I feel like he can be pressured into the right decisions. He is probably just an opportunist, but this means he will see the chance to capitalize on the conservative momentum and will at least act as a conservative.

Posted by: JP at January 28, 2011 11:03 AM (8s9tr)

610 Damnit, I picked Ron Paul thinking it was Rand Paul.

Posted by: Phelps at January 28, 2011 11:04 AM (50ajE)

611 Palin's "WTF" response to the State of the Union speech was the best out of any Republican (as usual). She cannot win, but the fact of the matter is that the economy will be improved enough in 2012 that Obama will have a cakewalk anyhow. So why not nominate someone who isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe and will not hesitate to rip the guy each and every day. Nominate a Romney or the like if you want a cowardly campaign. God Bless Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Greg at January 28, 2011 11:05 AM (QAxJ3)

612 How about the Sinai how long will Israel sit this one out. I have to believe they will not let the muslim brotherhood hold the Sinai.
Posted by: lions at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (lW97b)

I suspect if Egypt tries to move heavy Armor into the Sinai Israel will react and desicively

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 11:05 AM (0GFWk)

613 Sunset in Egypt.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:05 AM (SJ6/3)

614 People's opinion of her are already set in stone.

Exactly and she is loathed, and quite frankly, just because she thinks she can do the job doesn't mean she can. Is she a valuable asset, yes. For president, absolutely not.

Posted by: Mary Keller at January 28, 2011 11:05 AM (4dpZM)

615 So, show us your cards.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2011 10:42 AM (I49Jm)
My ideal candidate would be a two term governor (preferably from a swing state), who was impeccably conservative and able to win news cycles against the MFM. I'm not aware of such a person.So it's pretty much what we've got, and of the list I plan to see what the candidates do and say before I commit to one of them.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2011 11:05 AM (TpXEI)

616 Whoever considers Fuckabee as an option better re-examine their choice. He's the guy that wants to intrude into your lifestyle and say "Whoa what are you doing with that hot dog?" while eating one himself. He is that intrusive even on the abortion issue which most of us are fine with the fact abortion is here to stay BUT there are methods of abortion and the question of funding abortion we find absolutely unacceptable. I'm fine with social conservatives but when they start pushing their bullshit on the rest of the population, what do we get? Oh right, he's in the White House.

Posted by: Kaitian at January 28, 2011 11:07 AM (bkOJN)

617 Mubarack is going to address the nation on TV.
Could be one of three things.
1)he's stepping down
2) he's telling them he is going to go on a killing spree if they don't settle down
3)will promise massive reforms.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 11:07 AM (wuv1c)

618 Sarah Palin.

Why?

1) The Left will tell us whom they fear the most. The post-Tuscon slimefest bottomed out with a powerful pushback by most people to the right of Chris Matthews. Overreach on steroids, MSM. Her favorables are recovering quickly.

2) Caroline Glick puts it succinctly in her recent column published by the Jewish Press: "The Aim Of Blood Libels" (LINK). An excerpt:

What
distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the U.S. and
makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views
of the Left's opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in a way no
other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she
does not seek to win over leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.
(emphasis mine)

Posted by: mrp at January 28, 2011 11:07 AM (HjPtV)

619 19 "Herman Cain - Pizza lovers"

Biggest American constituency there is, baby!

Posted by: thirtyandSeven at January 28, 2011 11:07 AM (12dr4)

620 Jeff B.
...suppose Palin uttered "..and Gingrich is not as smart as his reputation would like you to believe"
Would you think that was stupid??..I mean personifying "reputation" isnot the smartest thing to do.

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 11:08 AM (AnTyA)

621 "Herman Cain - Pizza lovers"Biggest American constituency there is, baby!

Well, I guess he'd pick up all the stoner Libertarians with the munchies!

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:08 AM (pW2o8)

622 Mubarack is going to address the nation on TV.

Could be one of three things.

1)he's stepping down

2) he's telling them he is going to go on a killing spree if they don't settle down

3)will promise massive reforms.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 11:07 AM (wuv1c)

Ya mean after he blames the Jews?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 11:08 AM (0GFWk)

623 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:59 AM (NjYDy)
Uh... I rmember those years. I'm not speaking from someone elses perceptions.
Its amusing to me that I'm being accused of rewriting hisotry, by someone who calls Reagan a GENIUS?
He was clear in his views, and able to speak about them very well... and more imporatntly he put together a staff who would follow his lead... and create Policy which was clear and adheared to his beliefs...
But Reagan as a Policy wonk? Certainly not how I remember it.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (AdK6a)

624 What a shit sandwich.
That some of you are actually enthusiastic about these candidates is an embarassment to the conservative movement.

Sarah Palin, gah.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (epBek)

625 When the abortion issue comes up I suggest the Republican candidate just point to Dr. Kermit Gosnell and say this is what you think is safe and legal?
Posted by: mpfs

That would require intelligence and courage. The average Republican leader has neither, and the oh-so realistic fiscal cons can't be bothered.

Keep the truce and all that don't ya know

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (R2fpr)

626 The Left will tell us whom they fear the most. The post-Tuscon slimefest bottomed out with a powerful pushback by most people to the right of Chris Matthews. Overreach on steroids, MSM. Her favorables are recovering quickly.
I've got to be honest I've been hearing about this supposed "backlash against the MSM" for years now and it never seems to materialize. Maybe we should depend on this prophecy.

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (wuv1c)

627 "Her kids are a liability, not an asset, but I do tend to admire her loyalty to friends and family."

Not true. It's that idiot who got Bristol pregnant who is the liability and she will have to put up with.

Posted by: Kaitian at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (bkOJN)

628 Will a WSJ article do?

No, it absolutely will not, because she didn't write that. (Spare me the "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE!" pearl-clutching bullshit. Politicians *never* write these things, they farm them out to staffers.) I want to hear her speak, in her own words, about why she supports the plan. Not read what Randy Scheunemann wrote for her.

This is, in fact, exactly the point I was making: she never puts herself 'out there' in any way in an unmediated setting. It's either softball interviews with Hannity, Twitter blasts, or Facebook posts and editorials that are obviously written for her by someone else (because they bear none of the stylistic own hallmarks).

I want proof that she knows what she's talking about. We have earned that. Reagan wrote all his early speeches out in his own hand, and would talk endlessly, extemporaneously, for hours, to all comers whether friend or foe. Palin won't. That tells me so, so much. I'm shocked that you're willing to ignore it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (NjYDy)

629 Why bother? Really we should just give up now. Roll over, get communist party cards, buy some bikes, move to the inner city, re-create ourselves into a protected class member, teach our 3 year old children how to pin the malatov cocktain onto police cars, stop thinking and start feeling.
When you let the media pick your candidate, you're already over the cliff. You guys grasp that they will pick the one that can't win against Obama, right?

Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2011 11:09 AM (0Hp4r)

630 shouldn't

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 11:10 AM (wuv1c)

631 Palin/West
Common sense
Experience (P=executive; West=military)
Woman and a black man (a shot at cutting the racist/misogynist crap, but probably won;t work with Progressives)
Blood squirting out of Chris matthews eyes - PRICELESS!

Posted by: SLOHomemaker at January 28, 2011 11:10 AM (AOGo/)

632 Nobody on that listwould defeat Obama. A bunch of non-starters, several who have already failed ina presidential bid, aren't going to captivate the country.
As much as I think Palin gets a bad rep in the media, I can't take her seriously. I don't think she is dumb, but she isn't convincing me that she has the gravitas to run the country. The reality TV show cast her in a pretty colloquial light, and leaving the governorship to do a reality TV show isn't what I call smart policyor leadership credentials.
She isattractive and takes the right position on the issues, butshe will get killedbecause of thebaggage from quitting her post and the media'salready successfulcharacter assination.

Posted by: California Red at January 28, 2011 11:11 AM (smPb6)

633 The health care plan he proposed, which looks nothing like what we are living with now, was twisted out of recognition by a veto proof senate and house. It was an attempt at the state level to reign some of the most out of control health care costs in the nation. It hasn't worked Romney does need to do a better job of explaining the situation. I supported Romney last time, undecided at this point. Mitch Daniels is the most interesting to me at this point so no, I'm not a Mitt bot. It would help though if people on our side actually knew the facts.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2011 10:56 AM (TMB3S)
And it would help if Romney supporters would acknowledge the "fact" that Romney supports, even likes health insurance mandates.And it's his jolly support of the most odious aspect of the state healthcare system that informally bears his name that makes him a joke.
You don't even have to get into the glaringly obvious rhetorical devices that will torpedo him in the general. The minute he has to get into explaining and defending Mass/Romney Care is the moment he should really offer a concession speech.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (A/oSU)

634 Roll out the Egypt thread already.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (SJ6/3)

635 But Reagan as a Policy wonk? Certainly not how I remember it.
And your news sources at the time were?

Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (0Hp4r)

636 maddogg - "Her kids are a liability, not an asset, but I do tend to admire her loyalty to friends and family." --- are you referring to the disabled one or the ones in the military?

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (HKVGZ)

637 So Biden is defending Mubarak? Says he is no Dictator? Sure most people rule for 30+ rules?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (0GFWk)

638 Last? Seriously, I'm last? What don't you like about me?

What if I get laser-beam eyes? I hear those are popular.

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (AZGON)

639 But Reagan as a Policy wonk? Certainly not how I remember it.

Then you don't remember Reagan's tenure as Governor of California. Or you haven't read "Reagan In His Own Words," which is a collection of his weekly speeches that he wrote in his own hand (thus putting to rest any suspicions that a speechwriter did it for him). The guy was a legitimate master of the complexities of a massive state government.

By the time he got to the Presidential level, sure, he was much more big picture, as he had to be. But he knew what he believed precisely because he had wrestled on a nuts-and-bolts level with the ideas for decades and decades.

I love Reagan, but I don't like the hagiographical turn that has taken over among conservatives. Not only because it downplays his almost shocking compromises (i.e. massive tax increases, signing CA's abortion law into effect, etc.), but because it tends to turn him into Friendly Grandpa Reagan, denying him the credit he deserves for his intelligence.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:13 AM (NjYDy)

640

Scenario: The Islamic Brotherhood overturns the Egyptian government, storms the American Embassy and takes the American diplomatic staff hostage. Oil prices skyrocket.

What happens next?

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 11:13 AM (7+pP9)

641 Huckabbee is the goofy twit on Red Eye that plays bass?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:13 AM (SJ6/3)

642 Sarah. She's the only one that stands up to the media.... they are essentially who conservatives are running against.

Posted by: Janet at January 28, 2011 11:14 AM (xa9fe)

643 637 So Biden is defending Mubarak? Says he is no Dictator? Sure most people rule for 30+ rules?

--

30+ years? Sounds great to us! After all, it's our birthright! Remember all the years we controlled the House?

Posted by: Democratic National Committee at January 28, 2011 11:14 AM (PMnLO)

644 Another 6 day war.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:15 AM (SJ6/3)

645 Wow, I just don't like any of those. I guess Sarah Palin is the one I personally like best but I don't think she can win.

Uck. We're screwed.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at January 28, 2011 11:15 AM (OrTTr)

646 Enough people (including a lot of conservative..
many of them women) who will not bother going to the polls if she is the
candidate.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 10:37 AM (f9c2L)
FWIW - which is what I was commenting on.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (FIDMq)
----Well, if we're going to react to people's assertions about how other people would vote (or not vote), I'd be more worried about the segment who supposedly won't vote for Romney because of his religion. We hear about that group all the time - I just don't know how true it is because most people will not admit to being religious bigots.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:15 AM (pW2o8)

647 Ed Anger - cardigan sales and a USSS task force on rabbits

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 11:16 AM (judfL)

648 Besides being a lesser Jeff, I believe he also is jealous of my thick, lustrous head of hair. Something about him just strikes me as petty, vindictive and balding. But mostly balding.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 09:54 AM (TATbF)
I believe if he had his way he would turn you into the Semi-Autonomous Republic of Jeff.

Posted by: Minuteman at January 28, 2011 11:16 AM (/3GFM)

649 Bidens in denial about whats happening to Mubarak.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 11:16 AM (8lCJT)

650 Romney/Palin. the business sense, common sense ticket.

drawbacks: romney is solid on econ except for health care for some reason, and the baptists think he literally is a devil-worshipper.

the rest, either dont know about or dont want.

guiliani - no. and isn't he the shadow don for the mafia?

mitch daniels - is that his stage name? if so, i need his real name so i can look him up because when I hear his name, I think of Cartman's Hennifer Lopez.

thune - dont know

the rest - ha. yeah right. though cain and tpaw have the possibility to climb out of this level.

Posted by: A.G. at January 28, 2011 11:16 AM (oAVyq)

651 As much as I think Palin gets a bad rep in the media, I can't take her seriously.
She had the highest approval rating - ~90% - of any governor in the country when she was tapped (TAPPED!).

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 28, 2011 11:17 AM (JA0WS)

652 I think the people who think Palin is not running for President may be on to something, but what is this "needs to study to be President" bullshit?

Where does one go to get their PhD in Foreign Policy for Presidents? The last President who met that standard, i.e. a serious background in serious top drawer level policy making was George H.W. Bush. The last three presidents were all elected as (to one degree or another) populists.

She may not be "presidential" but as least she fights, which ought to count for something. There is no substitute for actually showing up and at least trying to contain Obama and his horde of progressive butt-monkeys, which is something many of the currently mooted candidates have either failed to do or failed to do so well enough for any one to actually notice.

Dismiss the facebook and twitter stuff, if you will, but she does have an impact with it, which also ought to count for something.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 28, 2011 11:17 AM (/joDP)

653 No she hasn't. Seriously - she hasn't. She has been speaking bromides, simple generalities. She 'endorsed' Paul Ryan's plan; do you *honestly* think she's read it and grasped it on a detailed level? Of course not! She probably scanned it (or read what others were saying about it) and said: okay, I'll endorse that.
That's a pretty big assumption your making there. In addition, you've now set a hurdle for Palin that 98% of elected politicans can't meet. Why is it that you demand that Palin have the knowledge of leading economists? Isn't that why we have economists and advisors? Do you think Romney fully understood the economic repercussions of Romneycare? If you think he did and just decided to say "screw it" and sign it, there is noway this man should be in charge of the country.
And this it the core of my problem with Sarah Palin. I honestly doubt she understands that much about economics beyond the level of platitudes (i.e. "taxes = bad; spending = bad"). Her level of understanding is probably that of McCain, who famously said he didn't understand the subject. If that.Sure, she can hire policy staffers to write nice Facebook posts for her, but it's obvious that she isn't involved in the composition of that material, given her inability to EVER, ONCE talk on a level of complexity and detail about it during an interview.
I personally think she writes all of her posts with, of course, some inputs from advisors but that neither her nor there. What level of complexity would satisfy you? Seriously.
And if I'm wrong, and she is secretly a policy wonk on the level of a Clinton, or Daniels, or Pawlenty...or even if she's capable of FAKING that sort of wonkery (the way, sadly, Obama is able to do), then why hasn't she? She must know that this is the sort of thing that would make people like me love her, that would make swing voters gravitate towards her as a strong, intelligent authority. Instead, it's all platitudes...nothing whatsoever evincing a deeper understanding.
There are leaders and then there are policy wonks. We elect leaders in this country because they have a vision and can motivate people to follow them. Palin is a leader and has a vision. The CBO director? Not so much.

Posted by: WishRich at January 28, 2011 11:18 AM (hdpay)

654 Ryan/Bolton with some of these other guys on their staff. Charisma, smarts, security, fiscal and self-responsibility, no women catfights/jealousy. The women in this country are setting themselves back about 100 yrs with this thing with Palin and it is embarrassing (as a woman myself). All the cons of all kinds would probably find these two acceptable.

Posted by: huskeriki at January 28, 2011 11:18 AM (0571E)

655 Reagan was a major wonk
This statement leads me to think you do not really know much about Reagan..or really understand the term.

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 11:18 AM (AnTyA)

656 Okay, look. How about this. I'm just brainstorming here, but just think:

Huckabee/Criss Angel 2012

Or maybe:

Huckabee/Andy Griffith 2012

Work with me here.

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at January 28, 2011 11:18 AM (AZGON)

657 >>>I believe if he had his way he would turn you into the Semi-Autonomous Republic of Jeff.

No, no, you got it all wrong. The Greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere of Jeff.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:18 AM (NjYDy)

658 Trajan/Marcus Aurelius...or Genghis Khan/George Washington; because we're going to need a Prez/VP of truly epic proportions to get us out of this mess.
Seriously, as an independent, I'm not at a point of knowing who I'd favor. I just know I'll favor them over you know who. I really like West -- West/Sowell, that has a nice ring, with Bolton at SoS, perhaps Palin running the RNC, perhaps Rudy at DoJ. I want Ryan staying in Congress; he's effective there. Same with DeMint -- I'd like to seethem turned loose with a majority Congress.
But if I had to pick from that list: Daniels, probably; Palin would be a close second choice (like her, but I'm afraid the mfm has destroyed her chances at public office; besides, she's very effective where she's at).
Please, Republicans, no Huckabee, Gingrich, or Romney -- they will lose; of that I'm almost certain.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2011 11:18 AM (5/yRG)

659 Gabe twits in another Mormon POTUS aspirant - Jon Huntsman; maybe the Mormon hierarchy is willing to burn off the anti-Mormon hate on Romney and be content with a strong VP candidate.

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 11:19 AM (G5WHn)

660 Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:15 AM (pW2o
I agree, I just cant fathom any 'republican/independant' not voting for such and such because of some petty difference and giving the nod to one who loathes a great America.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 11:19 AM (FIDMq)

661 We'll be stuck with whatever self-proclaimed or media-proclaimed f*cking genius the MFM gives us, and like it.

Posted by: Fritz, devil's advocate at January 28, 2011 11:20 AM (GwPRU)

662 So, per the CNN website, the Egyptian military has joined the police battling the protesters. An hour or two ago I heard a report that the protesters were chanting taunts of "Where is your Army?". I can't get to a TV at the moment, anyone know when/to whom Mubarak is going to speak?

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (hUf/c)

663 Can we start a Draft Iowahawk movement?

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (pW2o8)

664 >>>I believe if he had his way he would turn you into the Semi-Autonomous Republic of Jeff.

No, no, you got it all wrong. The Greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere of Jeff.

Will you demand the right of return? And do you have your own currency?

Posted by: George Orwell at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (AZGON)

665 Oh for god's sake, the media has been portraying the republican front runner or president as stupid since Eisenhower or before. You guys are going to fall for that again??? It's really really old.

Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (0Hp4r)

666 Palin. She'd probably lose, but she can be to conservatives what Goldwater was back in his day. Four elections hence, we'll elect someone like Reagan.
(Christie in 2028?)

Posted by: FireHorse at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (sWynj)

667 Yes, she does stand up to the media but do you really think all that snipping will gain votes? Really, serious voters in the middle are sick to death of that crap. She is more valuable NOT running for president so she can keep doing what she's good at... Seriously, like someone stated above, she won't even venture out of her comfort zone to be interviewed. Independents don't watch Hannity. SHE CANNOT WIN. And yes, I would also sit that vote out. We've got an inexperience president now and look where that's gotten us.

Posted by: Mary Keller at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (4dpZM)

668 There are an awful lot of newbies posting in this thread today. While I am sure that most of them are long time lurkers who decided to come out because of the subject matter today keep in mind that Axelrod is still around.

The primary is swing into play now and the concern trolls will abound.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (M9Ie6)

669 Tea Party riots in Egypt.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (SJ6/3)

670 Romney, but that's just the mood I'm in this morning. Wife's away, so I woke up thinking how nice it would be to have a spare right here at the house.
I'm into convenience this morning.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (IF0Oc)

671 Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:13 AM (NjYDy)
Ahhh.... makes sense then.... Never Dis someones HERO... its like religion.. all you do is piss someone off, and any contrarian view will be dismissed..

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (AdK6a)

672 Trajan/Marcus Aurelius...or Genghis Khan/George Washington; because we're going to need a Prez/VP of truly epic proportions to get us out of this mess.

Kirk/Khan 2012. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.

Plus, free toupes for all Starfleet members.

Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (AZGON)

673 i can haz egypt thred now?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (A/oSU)

674 Scenario: The Islamic Brotherhood overturns the Egyptian government, storms the American Embassy and takes the American diplomatic staff hostage. Oil prices skyrocket.What happens next?
Bambi soils himself, then sucks down a pack of cancer sticks while mumbling to himself, "Ok, I got this, OK, got this, Ok,..."

Posted by: rockhead at January 28, 2011 11:23 AM (RykTt)

675 Can we start a Draft Iowahawk movement?
Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (pW2o
Sign me up.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 11:24 AM (A/oSU)

676 One other thing for all you h8ters of any of the candidates; the idea for this thread was to present your candidate and why you like them.

It was not to start a flame war tearing down other people's candidate. That even goes for me and Shuckabee.

Note that I have not posted a long diatribe on why I think him, Newt, or Romney are bad. I will save that for other threads.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 11:24 AM (M9Ie6)

677 And yes, I would also sit that vote out. We've got an inexperience president now and look where that's gotten us.
Posted by: Mary Keller at January 28, 2011 11:21 AM (4dpZM)
inexperience has nothing to do with where we are at now, its called vision and policy.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 11:24 AM (FIDMq)

678 But Obama gave a speech in egypt, did it wear off?

Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2011 11:25 AM (0Hp4r)

679 Mitch Daniels -- because the rest of them kinda make me throw up in my mouth a little. And I think he'd do a good job and exhibit a refreshing absence of ego glorification.

Posted by: Peaches at January 28, 2011 11:25 AM (zxpIo)

680 Well, looks like Egypt is going the way of Iran... hope the Islamists don't destroy all the ancient Egyptian monuments and artifacts. Would be a damn shame.

Too bad about Israel, too.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (tJjm/)

681 "She has been speaking bromides, simple generalities. She 'endorsed' Paul Ryan's plan; do you *honestly* think she's read it and grasped it on a detailed level? Of course not! She probably scanned it (or read what others were saying about it) and said: okay, I'll endorse that."

Solid argument there, champ.

In other words: "I hate her because she's stupid. I KNOW she's stupid because . . . well . . . because SHUT UP, that's how."

Posted by: GOP Establishment at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (4YUWF)

682 Mubarak's party HQ is on fire.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (SJ6/3)

683 Who choose the listing order? Ya know the earlier we show our hand the more time the progs in the MSM will have to demonize her/him.

Posted by: Buffalobob at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (GwH6h)

684 Drudge says the police are starting to fight on the side of the islamists.

Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (0Hp4r)

685 Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 11:24 AM (M9Ie6)
Didnt you predict it would happen as soon as a certain group of bomb throwers showed up. You sir are a prophet!

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (FIDMq)

686
By the way, whoever tossed out that link to Glenn Beck's official radio show feed -- thanks. I much prefer listening to him this way, with music in the breaks, than on internet radio.

Actually, I think Beck's a lot better on the radio than he is on his show. I'm in a minority on that one, I know.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:26 AM (NjYDy)

687

669
Tea Party riots in Egypt.


Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:22 AM (SJ6/3)
That's how my local paper is reporting it.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 11:27 AM (7+pP9)

688 678 But Obama gave a speech in egypt, did it wear off?
Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2011 11:25 AM (0Hp4r)

No, it would appear to have worked exactly as intended.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:27 AM (tJjm/)

689 Damn, aren't you Palin fans getting sore fingers from all the multiple voting?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:27 AM (tJjm/)

690 686 Thanks from me to. I can't stomach the commercials.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:27 AM (SJ6/3)

691 How come you didn't put the smartest McCain on the list? Me.

h8ters.


Posted by: Meggy McFatty McCain, the poor man's hooker at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (xdHzq)

692 672 No, no -- you never put the unstable firebrand in the VP slot...probably should pick T'Pau Jimmie.
You'd appreciate my advice in the long run.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (5/yRG)

693 No good answers. I went with Thune just to match my grumpy mood.

Posted by: joncelli at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (RD7QR)

694 Copts are going to screwed again

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (7Jipo)

695 Main Entry: moderate
Definition: fair, average, so-so

Synonyms: bland, fair to middling, fairish, inconsequential, inconsiderable, indifferent, intermediate, mean, mediocre, medium, middling, ordinary, paltry, passable, piddling, trifling, trivial, unexceptional, 2012 Republican Candidate

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (NmKUg)

696 Azathoth/Nyarlathotep 2012.
FUCK ARMAGEDDON!
Lets just get it over with.

Posted by: MīceMū at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (0q2P7)

697 By the way, I prefer talking about our Presidential nominees because I think we're about to be royally fucked in the Middle East. It's all going to hell. Islamist government in Egypt, probability of revolutions in other countries...oh god it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Good luck, Israel.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (NjYDy)

698 Mubarak's party HQ is on fire.

That guy knows how to party.

Posted by: George Orwell at January 28, 2011 11:29 AM (AZGON)

699 Work with me here.
Mike Huckabee / Melissa Joan Hart 2012. She seems nice. Smart, too. Though I dodn't know her politics.
Mike Huckabee / Deep Blue 2012. If it's smarts you're after, Deep Blue's the guy. I mean, anyone who can beat Garry Kasparov in ches has gotta be smart.
Mike Huckabee / Bob Nardelli 2012. Nardelli successfully ran Home Depot and Chrysler, and his oustide-the-box thinking really broadened the definition of "successful" (e.g., the Cincinnati Bengals' successful season in 2010).

Posted by: FireHorse at January 28, 2011 11:29 AM (sWynj)

700
Damn, aren't you Palin fans getting sore fingers from all the multiple voting?
The poll allows multiple voting? Huzzah!

Posted by: mrp at January 28, 2011 11:29 AM (HjPtV)

701 Yes, she does stand up to the media but do you really think all that snipping will gain votes? Really, serious voters in the middle are sick to death of that crap. She is more valuable NOT running for president so she can keep doing what she's good at... Seriously, like someone stated above, she won't even venture out of her comfort zone to be interviewed. Independents don't watch Hannity. SHE CANNOT WIN. And yes, I would also sit that vote out. We've got an inexperience president now and look where that's gotten us.
Posted by: Mary Keller

Where to start....
No, most 'voters in the middle' are not sick, they're inculcated.
Most independents are dishonest Dems and liberals. Some are disgruntled conservatives and libertarians
the experience bit is old, and has been refuted several times. Of the four people running in 2008 (Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin) she had the most executive experience. She easily had more than Biden and Obama combined. There's a eason why no incumbent Senator had won the Presidency since 1960. Three words: John F Kennedy.
Comfort zone: get stuffed. her church was set on fire, she's been threatened with death, kidnapping and rape and burned in effigy while police stood by and did nothing. She is in a zone that few inhabit. Does this make her Presidential material? I still don't know, but this criticisms do not stand.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:29 AM (R2fpr)

702 If we're going to pull from that crop of newbies, I'd rather draft Rubio. I think that even now he'd clobber Obama.


Is Rubio old enough?

Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at January 28, 2011 11:30 AM (QV82F)

703 Egyptian police tossing uniforms and joining protesters.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 28, 2011 11:30 AM (SJ6/3)

704 >>And it would help if Romney supporters would acknowledge the "fact" that Romney supports, even likes health insurance mandates. And it's his jolly support of the most odious aspect of the state healthcare system that informally bears his name that makes him a joke.

And it would help if Romney detractors would acknowledge that when he was talking about mandate at the state level. You know, federalism. A mandate that said if you make 3 times the federal poverty level you must either have health insurance or a health savings account. The reason being that our hospitals, which are some of the finest and most in demand in the country, were being overrun by people with no insurance and the rest of us were paying for it through higher taxes and higher fees at doctors and hospitals.

Nobody talks about the fact that in this country it is the law that if someone shows up at a hospital that receives any federal funding (which is the vast majority of them) in need of care the hospital is mandated to serve them. That's the law and that's the world we live in. It's never going to change. In any state, just like at the federal level, health care costs are one of the biggest budget busters and left unattended they are going to drown us.

I have no problem with the mandate at the state level. I'm sick of paying higher taxes for people who can pay for health care pushing their care onto me. I would think you would support federalism and personal responsibility as well.

In any case, I'm not a Romney supporter right now. As I said, I am undecided but interested in learning more about Mitch Daniels.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2011 11:30 AM (TMB3S)

705 Sock OFF.

I'm not the GOP establishment, although their views seem to be, uh, shall we say, well-represented here. And on many allegedly conservative/right-wing sites.

We have a tactical nuclear weapon on our side, and yet many of us want to deploy one of our pop guns.

"Bang" vs. KABOOM.

I vote KABOOM. Let's nuke the bastards.

Posted by: tsj017 at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (4YUWF)

706 OT: an aside from Jeff B.'s comment, do read "Reagan In His Own Words". If you've not read it before, you will be stunned by the depth of the man. I was a big fan of Reagan's but had not realized how much media garbage I had unconsciously taken in.

Is there a word to convey the highest degree of absurdity in the universe? That word should be used when someone claims to compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: t-bird at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (FcR7P)

707 FRED!! Oh, wait...
Posted by: harrison at January 28, 2011 07:51 AM (LnEx0)

Marry me?

That being said, it's Sarah/Hermann all the way for me.

Posted by: RageAgainstTheSheeple at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (v3pYe)

708 Mike Huckabee / Deep Blue 2012.

I love your idea, but I'm kinda strapped for campaign cash. I was thinking "Huckabee/VIC-20."

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (AZGON)

709 oh god it's gonna be a bumpy ride.Good luck, Israel.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:28 AM (NjYDy)
Glad Sheriff Joe is around, I know I'll sleep better at night with that foreign policy WONK around.

Posted by: Ol' Painless at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (FIDMq)

710 new thread up on egypt with link to live feed

Posted by: Ben at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (wuv1c)

711 Just got to TV. Watching ruling party HQ "smoke" on CNN.
Oh cripes, it's really gonna happen this timeisn't it?

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 28, 2011 11:31 AM (hUf/c)

712 Damn, aren't you Palin fans getting sore fingers from all the multiple voting?
They're skilled. They trained during Dancing with the Stars.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (pLTLS)

713 I see Iowahawk as like the most awesome WH Press Secretary.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (5/yRG)

714 By the way, I prefer talking about our Presidential nominees because I think we're about to be royally fucked in the Middle East. It's all going to hell. Islamist government in Egypt, probability of revolutions in other countries...oh god it's gonna be a bumpy ride.Good luck, Israel.
Posted by: Jeff B

Don't be such a debby downer. Look at how wonderful our intelligence services have been at keeping our government apprised of trends and events, in a country to which we do have access, and to whom we supply aid and weapons.

Oh, wait.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (R2fpr)

715 What happens next?

3. Profit!

Posted by: progressives at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (GTbGH)

716 Blue Hen,

Any chance at ALL that come November 2012, with Obama crushing Palin with a 55% plurality, you will NOT blame the rest of us for predicting it and thereby making it so?

Or is there even the slightest possibility you might say, "Well, guys, looking at the outcome... I guess you were right?"

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (tJjm/)

717 Funny I would describe Obama as not up for the job or McCain not up for the job as he proved himself during the campaign with that stunt. Or Romney not up for the job following his robotic style his campaign laid out for him. I voted for Romney in the primaries thinking he knew economics. McCain won over people based on for love of country. I think more about Romney on Romneycare. Romney always answers that he felt it was best for the state and not a solution for country. Well if he is such a economic genius why didn't he realize if cost go up how the state was going to pay. We know the federal gov can just print money. States can't do that they have to tax. Of course it's not called a tax it's called something less shocking, like an assessment. So looks like Romney not much of a fiscal conservative after all.
Obama can campaign, the man was born for it, Romney would be shellacked.

Though I do want to see all run in the primary, competition is good as we shall see who is up for it.

Posted by: lions at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (lW97b)

718 Ben has an Egypt thread up for all who want that.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (M9Ie6)

719 The poll allows multiple voting? Huzzah!
Posted by: mrp


Consider this the official Chicago mayoral race warm-up thread.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (NmKUg)

720 702 Is Rubio old enough?

Yes. He was born in '71.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (sZ+lP)

721 Look, McCain's team vetted Palin in AK for months before choosing her. She had a high approval, and even the AK newspapers editorialized that she was the first Gov to appear before their boards (repeatedly) without aids and lawyers along side her.

So, she obviously WAS NOT an incompetent, then or now.

Let's just wait to see how she performs in the primaries, she will have to compete like all the rest.

Until then, let's just keep battling the leftwing propaganda media who are trying to destroy her....as they have every other conservatives to come down the pike.

Posted by: pam at January 28, 2011 11:32 AM (uDwml)

722

697
By the way, I prefer talking about our Presidential nominees because I
think we're about to be royally fucked in the Middle East.

What happens there is most likely going to be a big influence on the 2012 elections.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 11:33 AM (7+pP9)

723 I want proof that she knows what she's talking
about. We have earned that. Reagan wrote all his early speeches out in
his own hand, and would talk endlessly, extemporaneously, for hours, to
all comers whether friend or foe. Palin won't. That tells me so, so
much. I'm shocked that you're willing to ignore it.


Posted by: Jeff B
-----
Save your breath, Jeff.. We will have to wait for Repub primary debates before anyone in the Palin camp will believe you.(and probably not even then) Even as rehearsed as she will be, her lack of in-depth knowledge of most subjects will show through. It will be brutal. And if she chooses to run for the highest office in the land, it should be.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 11:33 AM (f9c2L)

724 I'd hold my nose and vote for anyone on that list to get the chicago dweeb out, but if huckabee is nominated I may need Val-U-Rite by the keg before i could bring myself to check his name on the ballot. And then after voting for him I'd feel so dirty I'd probably spend the rest of the day saying hail marys.. And I'm protestant.

Posted by: thirtyandSeven at January 28, 2011 11:33 AM (12dr4)

725 Is Rubio old enough?

He's 39. I think the minimum age is 35.

Posted by: Peaches at January 28, 2011 11:33 AM (zxpIo)

726 Damn, aren't you Palin fans getting sore fingers from all the multiple voting?
They're skilled. They trained during Dancing with the Stars.
Posted by: laceyunderalls

Uh.....yeah. That's it. That's the source of the soreness. I swear it. It was caused by dancing.. Or something like that.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:33 AM (R2fpr)

727 I think these riots in the mid-east are just as much about food prices as they are about anything else.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 28, 2011 11:34 AM (xdHzq)

728 When the MSM don't hate the Republican candidate is the time to worry.
How much scorn did they pore on John McCain?
The more the MSM howls the more you can be sure that the Republican candidate is a threat to the socialist agenda.
Never in my life has 'electability' meant so little as it does with Obama as the Dem incumbent.The Republicanscould run a rutabagga against him in 2012 and win, he'll be that despised by then.
The trick this time is to make sure that some statist legacy beltway GOP candidate isn't foisted on the American people by the GOP elites who have a vested interest in keeping the muck in the Augean Stables.
Sarah Palin for President.

Posted by: Speller at January 28, 2011 11:34 AM (J74Py)

729 676
One other thing for all you h8ters of any of the candidates; the idea
for this thread was to present your candidate and why you like them.

I think more would have been accomplished, Vic, had we not been given a pre-selected list of candidates. The list seems seriously flawed to me. Too short if it's supposed to include anyone who has indicated some interest (or about whom there's been inklings of a draft movement) and too long if it's declared candidates. See what I mean?

For me, no one on the list is someone I'd endorse. Some of them are acceptable for voting; some are folks I wouldn't (Ron Paul) or probably wouldn't (Herman Cain) vote for under "any" circumstances. (Well, maybe I'd vote for Cain - I'd have to learn more about his foreign policy and see if there's really qualities there that would suggest he could be POTUS, right now I'm doubtful).

So I think that's why it's natural for us to zoom in on what the flaws are.

I'd like to see two types of threads:

First, I think at this early stage it would be nice to have people (commenters) list three people they'd be enthusiastic about, irrespective of if they will run in 2012. Get them to explain why so we can see what the qualities are. That means people wedded to a particular candidate would have to choose two others they'd also love to see run and explain why.

And, I think it would be useful to have the bloggers do real detailed threads on people who are putting their names out there, including people like Huntsman. Right now all I've read (at Hot Air) are allegations and basically name-calling without any real substantial presentation of his experience and accomplishments. (The same can be said about a lot of folks, but Huntsman sticks in my mind because it's all been negative I don't think it's warranted to be that negative about him.) I'd like more information and less opinion.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:34 AM (pW2o8)

730 Attention, Ron Paul voters! Your straightjackets are ready, please report to window "D"

Posted by: Peaches at January 28, 2011 11:34 AM (zxpIo)

731 697 By the way, I prefer talking about our Presidential nominees because I think we're about to be royally fucked in the Middle East.

What happens there is most likely going to be a big influence on the 2012 elections.
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 28, 2011 11:33 AM (7+pP9)

Think of this as Obama's "Shah of Iran Moment." I hope our embassy staff have an easy avenue of egress...

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:34 AM (tJjm/)

732 Is Rubio old enough?He's 39. I think the minimum age is 35.
Posted by: Peaches

Why???? What the fuck are we going to do? Demand to see his birth certificate!?! Really?

Only Republicans would talk like this after the Manufactured Messiah waltzes in to the highest office in the land, whilst we have to do more to get a passport.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:35 AM (R2fpr)

733 Sarah. Why? No apologies Reagan conservative. RINOs hate her - 'nough said.

Posted by: phaedrus at January 28, 2011 11:36 AM (Z+mlb)

734 Jeff B.

Your choice for the nominee is...?

Don't be confined by the list.

Let your concerned conservative flag fly wild and free, baby!

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2011 11:36 AM (I49Jm)

735 From one of Palin's recent Facebook postings:



Consider what his [Obamas] big government greatness really amounts
to. Its basically a corporatist agenda its the collaboration
between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends
in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works
in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This
isnt just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony
capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, were
investing in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell
us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some
corporate interests who have major investments in these areas.



Here's the whole thing. But just remember, she's teh st00pid.

Posted by: blue star at January 28, 2011 11:36 AM (woyqb)

736 I want Mitt Romney. Why? I think he can win. He has the economic chops - Bain Capital. and the burueacratic (can never spell that damned word) exp as a leader-Gov.

the Mass health care plan is to me not the issue some make it. it is a STATES RIGHTS issue, period,

The people of AZ wanted SB1070 signed, Jan Brewer signed it.
The people of MASS wanted universal health care signed, Mitt Romney signed it.

end of story.

Federalism roolz and Obamacare droolz.

also Romney will look purty and POTUSlike up there debating Barry. ya know for those voters who like that sort of thing. cough.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 11:36 AM (WBTJo)

737 Trying that link again.

Posted by: blue star at January 28, 2011 11:36 AM (woyqb)

738
>>Bambi soils himself, then sucks down a pack of cancer sticks while mumbling to himself, "Ok, I got this, OK, got this, Ok,..."



The United States has had it two ways for years in the Middle East. Funding and defending authoritarian regimes while encouraging some political dissent and condemning human rights abuses by the governments it considers crucial partners in an unstable region.

That disconnect explains why no U.S. official has given full-throated support to the popular unrest rippling across the Middle East. Leaders from Obama down have noted the help the U.S. gets from Egypt, in particular, while urging reform on Mubarak who is due to speak soon.

Now the United States is struggling to come up with a regional strategy that acknowledges the thirst for change and incorporates the differences in each of the countries now in flux.

This situation doesn't look good to me... Just sayin'. Barry and Hilary will fuck this up. Neither has a clue.

Posted by: sickinmass at January 28, 2011 11:37 AM (1rflU)

739 Look, McCain's team vetted Palin in AK for months before choosing her.

I wouldn't trust McCain's team to vet Mother Theresa. Anyhoo, you seem like a rare Pailin supporter, instead of the very common Palin cultist. If there were more of the former, I could see myself being one of them.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 11:37 AM (epBek)

740 Palin = suicide. And I'm not ready to give up on America yet.<<<Jeff B

Your PDS has been duly noted. Thanks for reposting.

Posted by: Kerry at January 28, 2011 11:37 AM (a/VXa)

741 636 maddogg - "Her kids are a liability, not an asset, but I do tend to admire her loyalty to friends and family." --- are you referring to the disabled one or the ones in the military?
Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2011 11:12 AM (HKVGZ)
I'm referring to the one who opens her womb to cheap publicity hustlers and then inhabits the pages of the tabloids and reality TV shows.

Posted by: maddogg at January 28, 2011 11:37 AM (OlN4e)

742 We will have to wait for Repub primary debates before anyone in the Palin camp will believe you.(and probably not even then) Even as rehearsed as she will be, her lack of in-depth knowledge of most subjects will show through. It will be brutal
yeah...the fact that she more than held her own in a debate against a guy who has been in the senate for 40 years and whose area of specialty was foreign policy doesn't mean shit....right?

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 11:38 AM (AnTyA)

743 AHOY!

Posted by: PALINISTO! at January 28, 2011 11:38 AM (kv1O3)

744 I voted for Sarah Palin but only 'cuz Chris Christie wasn't on the list.

Posted by: Czarkazm at January 28, 2011 11:40 AM (hN1wF)

745 But just remember, she's teh st00pid.
Some of us don't think she's dumb btw, although we may question her choices . Ultimately we just think she would guarantee us another four years ofThe Stuttering Bumblefuck

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 11:40 AM (pLTLS)

746 Where to start....

No, most 'voters in the middle' are not sick, they're inculcated.

Most independents are dishonest Dems and liberals. Some are disgruntled conservatives and libertarians

the experience bit is old, and has been refuted several times. Of the four people running in 2008 (Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin) she had the most executive experience. She easily had more than Biden and Obama combined. There's a eason why no incumbent Senator had won the Presidency since 1960. Three words: John F Kennedy.

Comfort zone: get stuffed. her church was set on fire, she's been threatened with death, kidnapping and rape and burned in effigy while police stood by and did nothing. She is in a zone that few inhabit. Does this make her Presidential material? I still don't know, but this criticisms do not stand.
-------------------

Well, I guess the independents I know who are center right then don't count... I realize she has executive experience but I still don't believe she is ready to be president. And I'm talking about the comfort zone of Fox news and talk radio. I don't dispute she's put up with a lot. I actually admire her and enjoy her sound bites. She just will not become president... in my humble opinion as they say.

Posted by: Mary at January 28, 2011 11:41 AM (4dpZM)

747 This situation doesn't look good to me... Just sayin'. Barry and Hilary will fuck this up. Neither has a clue.
Posted by: sickinmass at January 28, 2011 11:37 AM (1rflU)

It's not enough to just topple a dictator or let him fall. We have to actively participate in the process of ensuring a REAL democracy gets installed, not just a muslim theocracy. Bush W. understood this; others starting with Carter have NOT.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:41 AM (tJjm/)

748
We need to have some prominent conservative sacrifice himself, much like the self-immolation of the Tunisian shopkeeper. He should participate in one of the MSMs weekly rituals, and go absolutely ballistic and antagonistic toward the liberal pablum pushers when they try to provoke some sound bite they can use to sabotage a conservative candidate.

Deck Chris Matthews, rearrange Christiane Amanpours face, or give David Gregory a Glasgow smile. This act would inspire a movement against the MSM, much as that c*nty CNN reporter in April 09 helped to demonstrate the bias against the incipient Tea Party.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 28, 2011 11:41 AM (8lCJT)

749 729 That's a great idea: I wish a lot of blogs would do something like that. I'd for sure link them, disseminate info and all that. It would be nice to have the info to make an informed decision.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2011 11:42 AM (5/yRG)

750 Some of us don't think she's dumb btw, although we may question her choices . Ultimately we just think she would guarantee us another four years of The Stuttering Bumblefuck

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2011 11:40 AM (pLTLS)

Exactly.

It's not like I don't like her politics. I'd be tickled pink if she WAS elected, and unlike Blue Hen would concede I was wrong, gladly.

It's just that I just don't see there is a chance of that happening.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:42 AM (tJjm/)

751 Ron Paul would be a disaster on foreign policy.

No argument there. But fiscally, given that the strong US economy is the substrate for the strength of US foreign policy, Ron Paul would be a solid president. Irony of limitations maximizing strength.

Choosing your fights carefully substantiates the revisionist argument that Obama need never produce his long-form birth certificate, because who care's about the Constitution when it really comes down to case in point? Convenience is all that would matter. Reflection on that point illustrates plenty of examples that choosing fights carefully can be done wisely, ignorantly and foolishly, for whatever reasons.

I would argue that being Libertarian would not require one to be an isolationist. Rather, it seems that neoconservatives would blanket smear all Libertarians as cowards unwilling to defend our Constitution. I would also argue that a Libertarian POTUS would more likely conduct effective Military engagements to protect the USA than those representing the major parties would conduct.

I have consistently criticized Ron Paul's international agenda for his not assessing in public his strategy and tactics to get from where the US Military is abroad to the point of absurdity simply protecting our borders were his strict isolationist policy in effect.

There are many Americans, perhaps most Americans, who recognize the futility of functioning as if our economy is still capable supporting agendas to police the world at US taxpayer expense. But we can certainly afford our military, and require our strong military.

I also consistently criticize the neoconservative agenda for open borders and US aggressive nation building abroad. See no evil PC Policy from the Oval Office and the Brass dictate that the US Military, even via the specific bases situated along the US Borders, not protect our borders from the occurring invasion. Through no fault of Libertarian votes, I again point out that from the procurements, our Military arsenal of craft is expired with fragments of incomplete/defunded update orders as complements, and lacking parts and means to refuel in air.

Aware of the Libertarian preference for non-intervention abroad, I have not read anything of Barr's own arguments stipulating American isolationism as his personal ideal. Rather, I'd take Barr as sharing Goldwater's politics. If you must fight a war, do it summarily according to the Constitution defending the USA most effectively, have the entire plan to get through and past the war with goals achieved, and don't wear out your welcome.

Having a strong defense policy need not be contrary to preference for non-intervention. Interventionism did the USA no good propping up authoritarian pigs wearing democracy lipstick around the globe; Taiwan, Cuba, Vietnam, dominoes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask the indigenous Iraqi Christians with their inherent faith and property rights preceding the Muslim's how being annihilated since the George Bush power shift is better for global stability. There are always casualties, granted. But ignoring the inconvenient truths because compassionate rhetoric sounds and feels better is honest only so far as concerns the convenience of comfort within authoritarian globalism.

Patton's strategy to take down Stalin's USSR rather than empower them at Berlin and subsequently would have made all the difference for Eastern Europe, for whose surviving population relief was denied for generations at the end of WWII. MacArthur's Korean strategic nuclear bombing would have worked, enforcing the no-man's-land between the North and South that the communists refused to honor, accomplishing detente without the hand-to-hand price of bloody combat from all sides. Given the Cold War, Libertarian-Republican Goldwater was tagged a "war hawk" for proposing a unilateral bombing (dikes would do it) of Vietnam and to leave the Kennedy foolish good intentions at rest rather than succumb to the foolish augmentation of LBJ's Vietnam bloody draft plan.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 11:43 AM (H+LJc)

752 I think Thune needs to build more national id, and drop the damned farm subsidies if he wants Indy and Tea Party moderate support.

Marrrrco will be great in a few years too. with my luck he will run against Hillary in 16 and I will be torn, sigh.

TPaw and Mitch are just too damned boring. This is an electorate who bought into the Obama Brand. the MSM will be lifting Obummer even more than they did last time.

I think Mitt can push back against the media. McCain was the wishywashy last time and that got us no where.

I can see Mitt tearing Obummer up in a debate. I cant see TPaw, Mitch doing that.

Huck is not someone I feel comfortable voting for, not b/c of his religiouiosity, but frankly b/c his religiosity causes him to let murderers out of jail.

Sarah is great, but I do not see how she can overcome resigning midterm in AK in a debate right now. Maybe after a few years of showing party leadership and I dunno working with a foreign policy think tank or something? or ideally a few years as Romneys' Secretary of Energy! that would be Teh Awesome!

and as always pls take my opinion with the shaker of salt as you would a recovering Dem. :0)

I think Mitt can win the fiscal conservatives from the Tea Party. A LOT of us are in the Tea Party based on the fiscal issues, that is our main thing.

I like Chris Christie b/c he is fiscal conservative/social libertarian. But he needs a few years o seasoning and he political dynamic is not right for that combo right now IMO.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 11:44 AM (WBTJo)

753 Blue Hen, Any chance at ALL that come November 2012, with Obama crushing Palin with a 55% plurality, you will NOT blame the rest of us for predicting it and thereby making it so? Or is there even the slightest possibility you might say, "Well, guys, looking at the outcome... I guess you were right?"
Posted by: CoolCzech

This is the problem of picking horses in such a race. It's like the cheesy time travel stories. Doing or saying something, or not doing or saying something, CAN have an effect.
In the case of Delaware, I ignored the candidate that was a better fit ideologically and went for the "only electable man in Delaware". After that, I went behind O'Donnell. I know for a fact that that some people declared themselves in opposition to her and voted against her or stayed home. This I know. Was this thedifference between victory and defeat? I don't know. Since I can't prove that it was a critical difference, I cna't claim that 'she wuz robbed'.

That same question has been asked here today, and that same charge was levelled in 2008. Will I place blame? If I have evidence to support it, yes. If I don't, then I'll not.

And that is politics.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:44 AM (R2fpr)

754 I have never in my life been menaced by a pack of wayward Mormon kids. As a group, Mormons are the friendliest, most sincere, hardest-working people in our society.
Apparently you've never my Polynesian brethren.

--

I don't get the love for Perry. He's Bush-lite. He's a dim bulb and knee-deep in back room deals. He makes sad sacks like Romney and media creations like Palin look attractive.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 11:44 AM (epBek)

755 Palin isn't electable for a variety of reasons, #1 being her voice - she seriously needs a voice coach to change that god awful screeching fingernails on the blackboard voice of her's. Secondly, many conservative women hate her as much as liberal women hate her - not a good recipe for electability. Third, she is way too folksy and lacks a certain gravitas - it's like watching the prom queen give her acceptance speech. Lastly, she is very good looking - good looking women can't possibly that smart can they? Where I think she can do the most good is keeping a lid on the tea party which is like herding cats, but she can do it and garner a lot of support for who ever the nominee will be.

Before anybody goes off the freakin' rails, I like Palin a lot and I think she would make a good President - I'm just being honest.

Romney isn't a good choice either. I'm sure he's a competent leader, he did work well with the Democrats in MA and he actually got some things done, but his approach to Romneycare will kill him with conservatives.

Giuliani and Gingrich's time has passed and their personal histories don't help any. Paul is an idiot. Huckabee is a possibility, but again, too middle of the road for conservatives and, frankly, not likable enough. Of the rest, Pawlenty is probably the best choice - he's competent, affable, smart, knowledgeable, did a good job with Minnesota and handling the DFL and is electable. The problem is name recognition - Pawlenty who? However, if he mounts a credible fund raising effort, gets some help from other conservatives (including the "tea party" squirrels), makes some sound proposals and gets conservatives like Cantor and Ryan to support him while following their economic plans, it's doable.



Posted by: Tom Francis at January 28, 2011 11:45 AM (vk8Ll)

756 It probably doesn't matter in the least who I want. The Dems will flood the (R) primaries and shove the guy they most want -- next to Obama -- down our throats. It will be a choice between Obama and Obama lite.

I have no intention of getting off my @ss to vote for Obama lite.

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at January 28, 2011 11:46 AM (IhHdM)

757 Even as rehearsed as she will be, her lack of
in-depth knowledge of most subjects will show through. It will be
brutal. And if she chooses to run for the highest office in the land,
it should be.



Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 11:33 AMI am willing to use that as a standard, because God knows whoever ends up as the nominee, they will encounter an all-out shit storm of abuse. In fact, I would not mind if the other candidates all ganged up to try to run her out of the thing early, since even their worst would be a pillow fight compared to the title fight versus Teleprompter Jesus and his journalist butt-buddies.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 28, 2011 11:46 AM (/joDP)

758 As Kate M. would quip, "another internet poll gone horribly wrong."

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 11:47 AM (/g2vP)

759 folks questioning why HRC isnt tossing flowers to the protesters pls see what John Bolton said about this yesterday. good chance the Muslim Brotherhood will take over if the army is defeated. NOT something we want to see happen here in the US. Is Mubarak a dictator? yes. is he a US ally? also yes.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 11:47 AM (WBTJo)

760 755 Palin isn't electable for a variety of reasons, #1 being her voice - she seriously needs a voice coach to change that god awful screeching fingernails on the blackboard voice of her's. Secondly, many conservative women hate her as much as liberal women hate her - not a good recipe for electability. Third, she is way too folksy and lacks a certain gravitas - it's like watching the prom queen give her acceptance speech

All true.

I don't know if that voice and those mannerisms are just wearing on me, but my perception is that she has actually intensified all of it to build up her "folksy" persona.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:48 AM (tJjm/)

761 Good lookin', nice ta-ta's and she enrages all the right people.
Sold!
Serially, all of us who like her but add "... but she can't win" need to understand that the reason we are concerned about that is that we have heard the media drumbeat for several years now, and it cannot help but give us pause - which is what it is supposed to do. The media message is controlled by the Democratic Party, and more directly than we even imagine.
I am sick and tired of the media picking our candidates. Whomever they fear the most is probably our best bet, and in Sarah's case she will not suck up to them like McLame did. She will mop the floor with them, and we will get a good conservative President, and a media nursing the black eyesthey so richly deserve. Like I said...
Sold!
ps. Sarah, honey, get a voice coach that can teach you to project without letting the pitch go up too much. You learn that and you got the job, dear.

Posted by: sherlock at January 28, 2011 11:48 AM (81ia8)

762 I have never in my life been menaced by a pack of wayward Mormon kids. ----
Just the other day one of "them" came to my house carrying a large "club" made of flesh and bone. Ok, it was in the form of a nine-pound leg of lamb which she brought as a gift, but still... SCARRRRRY!

The anti-Mormon stuff makes me ashamed to be in the same party with some people.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:48 AM (pW2o8)

763 Where's the 'Stache?

Should put John Bolton on the poll. He isn't the one I most want to be President, but he is the one I most want to run. Every debate. Every speech. It would surly awesomeness. And who knows.... maybe VP?

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 28, 2011 11:49 AM (6ftzF)

764
yeah...the fact that she more than held her own
in a debate against a guy who has been in the senate for 40 years and
whose area of specialty was foreign policy doesn't mean shit....right?
Posted by: beedubya

---------
If you truly think she held her own, then you are in the unconvinceable crowd.. no need to discuss any further.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 11:50 AM (f9c2L)

765 I have no use for any of the Republicans anymore. If they stink of Party, they stink. I'll take Sarah.

Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2011 11:51 AM (+iUU8)

766 Your choice for the nominee is...?



Don't be confined by the list.



Let your concerned conservative flag fly wild and free, baby!

Leaving aside the "concern troll" snark, I already said who my preferred candidate is: Daniels. Maybe Pawlenty as a second choice. (The problem is that we have a whole sheaf of great candidates who would be ready to go...in 2016. Pence, Rubio, Ryan, Christie, you name it...but none of them are on the board for this election.)

Honestly, I'll vote in the general election for ANYONE we nominate. Even Huckabee. Hell, I'd vote for my pet huskie over Obama, for chrissakes. (Sophie's a sweet dog, she's beautiful and photogenic, and she's strong-willed and independent...good enough for me!) But I'm a dead-red conservative Republican, who lives and breathes right-wing politics...I'm not exactly a representative sample of the electorate.

And I care about winning, desperately. The thought of Obama winning a second term and entrenching ObamaCare whilst letting the rest of our entitlements sink even further into bone-crushing insolvency harrows me with fear. I will do anything to vote that guy out of office, and a huge part of that for me is making sure we move forward with a candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of making it a real race.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:51 AM (NjYDy)

767 I'm still gloing with Palin because i agree at this point Obama is still likely to win re-election and i want her to at least have a chance to go against the dems and their buddies in the media on a national stage one more time. If i think Obama has a chance of losing i'd go with John Thune or possibly Herman Cain once i know more about him and know for sure he doesn't have any tendency towards Ron Paul nuttery.

Posted by: booger at January 28, 2011 11:51 AM (9RFH1)

768 #739

Well, McCain's team obviously saw something worth the risk, they could have found numerous other conservatives who would have run with him.

At the time I remember Charlie Rose (who interviewed her numerous times before 0 said that she reminded him of a certain Western libertarianism he hadn't seen in a long time, and I agree.

I liked Rudy in 08.

I believe it is time for a ruthless SOB in the WH. Someone who takes risks.

If she can get her act together, she can be both.



Posted by: pam at January 28, 2011 11:51 AM (uDwml)

769 Well, I guess the independents I know who are center right then don't count... I realize she has executive experience but I still don't believe she is ready to be president. And I'm talking about the comfort zone of Fox news and talk radio. I don't dispute she's put up with a lot. I actually admire her and enjoy her sound bites. She just will not become president... in my humble opinion as they say.
Posted by: Mary at January 28, 2011 11:41 AM (4dpZM)

Didn't say that. Yes, there are persons in shapes, sizes and flavors calling themselves 'independents'.

When convenient, you decouple the experience part. She was THE most experienced one of the four. It is inconvenient to say that, so it's dismissed, with the consolation prize of "well of course she has experience". Note that my phrase and yours do not reconcile. And that mine if far more flattering to her, and less so to the others.
New slogan for McCain= "vote for me! I have less experience than my side-kick" Don't quite ring out, does it?

As for comfort zones, I'm talking about it all. Neither McCain or Obama are exactly roaming the media wilderness alone, nor do they work without a net.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 11:51 AM (R2fpr)

770 the fact that she more than held her own in a debate against a guy who has been in the senate for 40 years and whose area of specialty was foreign policy doesn't mean shit....right

I notice you forgot to mention that this foreign policy genius she took on was . . . Joe Biden.
yeah, I just took down my three-year old daughter. Fighting skills proved.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 11:52 AM (epBek)

771 I also think every damned Republican or Conservative should COMMIT to voting for WHOEVERTHEHELL is on the damned ticket vs Obama.

If they had done this in 08 we would have McCain and not Obama.

and anyone who thinks there would be NO DIFFERENCE b/w the two is smokin good rope and pls pass it this way.

Would MAC have been your choice? no but would he have done the economic damage Obama did? no way N-O-W-A-Y-

If a lifelong Dem like myself could gt out there and pull the lever for MAC, I sure as hell expected the GOP to show up. and they didnt.

now that we KNOW how damaging that is and how cutting off our nose to spite our face gave us Obamacare and mass UE, I hope to hell EVERYONE COMMITS to voting the GOP ticket in '12.

Please. we will never ever reverse Obamacare if we dont take the POTUS in 12.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 11:52 AM (WBTJo)

772 Well, right now we don't even know if the woman intends to run or not.

Let's pick up the argument again if and when she declares her candidacy?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:53 AM (tJjm/)

773 Palin will win because B.H.Obama will choose not to run for re-election in 2012 because of state disclosure requirements regarding the long form birth certificate.At least 6, and maybe as many as 10 states will have this on the books as a prerequisite to being on the ballot. "uncle Joe" Biden Will be the candidate as Obama Will resign prior to the general election giving Biden the office in order to block Hillary Clinton Sarah Palin will eat him up in the debates and the general election. Palin/West 01/20/2012! .

Posted by: blogforce one at January 28, 2011 11:53 AM (hjn1y)

774 Re: 704: "And it would help if Romney detractors would acknowledge that when he was talking about mandate at the state level. You know, federalism."
And it would ALSO help if Romney supporters acknowledged he wastalking about socialized medicine, federalist sanctioned or otherwise.

Posted by: Sean P at January 28, 2011 11:54 AM (+f/TR)

775 yeah...the fact that she more than held her own
in a debate against a guy who has been in the senate for 40 years and
whose area of specialty was foreign policy doesn't mean shit....right?Posted by: beedubya

Let's grant your assertion that she "more than held her own" in that VP debate. What has she done since then? Why has she not put herself in ONE SINGLE FORUM where she would have to face tough questions and answer spontaneously since then? What, does she think that she passed her test and now doesn't have to engage her critics in an open debate anymore? Because I don't, and I sure as shit know that the rest of the electorate (outside of the true believers) doesn't think so either.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:54 AM (NjYDy)

776 @773:

SIGH.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:54 AM (tJjm/)

777 Herman Cain can beat him. The rest, I am not so sure.

Sarah Palin cannot beat him, folks. It's time to stop the naivete on this.

Posted by: Rob Waterson at January 28, 2011 11:54 AM (btVLO)

778 I notice you forgot to mention that this foreign policy genius she took on was . . . Joe Biden.

tee hee

Posted by: Peaches at January 28, 2011 11:55 AM (zxpIo)

779 and in re Sarah, the real reason the MSM and lefties lost their shxt over her is b.c she PROVED Gerry Ferraro right when she said...

any woman with Obamas level of exp running for POTUS (or VEEP!) would be laughed off the stage. he got a pass.

and so it was. and that made them really fxckin uncomfortable and they cant handle it so they are in total denial and scream and foam and bark about some other shxt,. but that is what it is IMO.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 11:56 AM (WBTJo)

780 What has she done since then? Why has she not put herself in ONE SINGLE FORUM where she would have to face tough questions and answer spontaneously since then?

Because, her supporters will bleat, that would be an "unfair environment."

Well, that's life. For a Republican nominee, the media will be hostile. If she can't take on Katy "the Colon" Couric NOW, does she think she can cruise into the WH doing nothing but freaking Hannity?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 11:56 AM (tJjm/)

781 I am sick and tired of the media picking our candidates. Whomever they fear the most is probably our best bet
You do see the contradiction there, don't you?

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 11:56 AM (epBek)

782 The anti-Mormon stuff makes me ashamed to be in the same party with some people.


Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 11:48 AM (pW2o
I never got that either. I have a few problems with Romney but him being a Mormon doesn't even make the list.

Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 11:56 AM (VuLos)

783

Column A: Palin skeptics who are willing to at least let her try to get nominated, and are open to the idea she is not a complete fucking retard.
Column B: Palin skeptics who are really really skeptical, but think she might have her uses, e.g. get out the vote, catch shit
from the media, be a picador to soften up Obama for the
bullfighter-to-be-named-later, etc-as long as she is not running for
President.
Column C: Arrogant arses who toss off while they blithely assure us that Sarah Palin is a fucking retard.


Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 28, 2011 11:56 AM (/joDP)

784 Really, serious voters in the middle are sick to death of that crap.

You lost me right there. There are no serious voters in the middle.

Posted by: grognard at January 28, 2011 11:57 AM (NS2Mo)

785 I notice you forgot to mention that this foreign policy genius she took on was . . . Joe Biden.
yeah, I just took down my three-year old daughter. Fighting skills proved.
Nope..didn't forget..it was a rhetorical device..
..and had your three year-old been involved in US foreign policy for nearly 40 years??
(This too is a rhetorical device, just in case you couldn't discern that again)

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 11:59 AM (AnTyA)

786 ABoM, #783
75% B, 15% A, 10% C

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 11:59 AM (epBek)

787 Ryan

Posted by: NICKIE GOOMBA at January 28, 2011 11:59 AM (H4Kxb)

788 You lost me right there. There are no serious voters in the middle.

Yeah, well unfortunately for us their votes count every bit as much as our IMPASSIONED, WELL-INFORMED SERIOUS ones.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:59 AM (NjYDy)

789 I never got that either. I have a few problems with Romney but him being a Mormon doesn't even make the list.

Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2011 11:56 AM (VuLos)

The only thing about it is, I believe he became one because he married a Mormon. Mormonism isn't exactly orthodox Christianity, and I doubt seriously he had a serious "conversion" other than for convenience.

Sort of like with Romneycare/Obamacare...

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 12:00 PM (tJjm/)

790 also the crony capitalist TBTF frakkers WILL support Romney aka Bain Capital over Obummer IMO. So there is the funding to consider as well..those crony TBTF frakkers like to pick our POTUS and they were all Obummer all the time last time,.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 12:00 PM (WBTJo)

791 Sarah Palin is the only one who correctly articulates the problems underlying our present malaise. See has a long history of effective executive governance. She will make the hard choices and decisions. She is nobody's puppet. She believes in political loyalty (you are welcome, John McCain!), but not political expediency.

The only downside to her is the MSM's very effective character assassination. Then again, if they can do that to her, they can do it to any conservative, so we can not let that influence us. She needs to go around the MSM to get her message out during her election campaign.

Posted by: Ken at January 28, 2011 12:01 PM (3ar4L)

792 Circa (Insert Year Here)

Give the projection a rest is all the impartiality I referenced.

It doesn't look good, and I'd rather he hadn't, doesn't eliminate Barr's rationale having some basis.

Over done with conjectures.

Barr would make a solid constitutional conservative POTUS capable of politically unifying voting elements from across the board, excepting the social-cons and the bipartisan neoconservatives. That's what I said, and say.

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 12:01 PM (H+LJc)

793 I voted for Daniels.

I loves me Sarah, but polarizing isn't what we (as a nation, not a collection of conservatives) need.
Deep down, Herman Cain is my #1 choice, but I really don't want to see the MFM "Our black guy is better than your black guy" war.
So, since I tend to drink late into the night and hope for excitement, I'm going with boring Daniels. Personally, I think the country is eager for a competent snooze fest.

We could still get the really exciting MSM flame war if he picked either Palin OR Cain for VP.

Huckabee is such a nice person that I'd really hate to see him lose his day job.

Posted by: jwb7605 at January 28, 2011 12:01 PM (Qxe/p)

794 Write in vote: CONGRESSMAN LTC ALLEN WEST

Posted by: MMM at January 28, 2011 12:02 PM (A22Vu)

795 I have the earnest wordy toolbag vote sewed up.

Posted by: Mitch Daniels at January 28, 2011 12:02 PM (/joDP)

796 Palin because she's got balls, BALLS!
Look down the list and kindly point out anyone who is swingin'a big cast-iron pair.
Also, she's a hell of a lot more ready than she was two years ago. The press and the non-press Democrats are afraid of her hence the continuous attacks even after she's no longer in office.

Posted by: Max Entropy at January 28, 2011 12:03 PM (lH6z9)

797 Circa (Insert Year Here)

Regardless of '08 platform, you trounced Teh Fred, feeding the "fire in the belly" mantra that bore Obama's election. No?

Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 12:04 PM (H+LJc)

798 What has she done since then? Why has she not put herself in ONE
SINGLE FORUM where she would have to face tough questions and answer
spontaneously since then? What, does she think that she passed her test
and now doesn't have to engage her critics in an open debate anymore?

That's what primaries are for, Jeff.

I watched her gubernatorial primary debates and general election debate(s) (YouTube?). She eviscerated the competition. She beat the sitting governor of her own party in the primary (Murky's pa). She will be our nominee. She will beat Obama, if Obama decides to run for a second term.

Posted by: mrp at January 28, 2011 12:04 PM (HjPtV)

799 The only thing about it is, I believe he became one because he married a
Mormon. Mormonism isn't exactly orthodox Christianity, and I doubt
seriously he had a serious "conversion" other than for convenience.



Sort of like with Romneycare/Obamacare...

Nah, Romney's father George Romney (Governor of Michigan, successful auto executive, among other things) was also a Mormon, and hailed from a long line of Mormons going all the way back to the 19th century.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 12:04 PM (NjYDy)

800 The only thing about it is, I believe he became one because he married a Mormon.

Reading his bio, it looks like he followed the regular sequence of a young LDS man, doing his mission prior to completing college. That makes me think he's not a convert.

Yep, reading further, his dad was a Mormon. Mitt is not a convert.


Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:05 PM (pW2o8)

801 and had your three year-old been involved in US foreign policy for nearly 40 years??
No, yet she already displays the oratorical acumen, the intelligence, and the policy smarts of the great Joe Biden.
(This is me subverting your pathetic rhetorical devices, just in case you couldn't discern that, again)

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 12:05 PM (epBek)

802 Palin, because she alone has fought this socialist debacle out in the open. And she pisses off all the right people.

My neighbor across the street who runs a little internet business distributing his own product worldwide couldn't do any worse than the ding-a-ling we have in there now.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 28, 2011 12:05 PM (o3bYL)

803 788
You lost me right there. There are no serious voters in the middle.

Yeah, well unfortunately for us their votes count every bit as much as our IMPASSIONED, WELL-INFORMED SERIOUS ones.


Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:59 AM (NjYDy)
Maybe we ought to try to turn them into impassioned, well-informed, serious voters instead of just giving them a squish.

Posted by: grognard at January 28, 2011 12:06 PM (NS2Mo)

804 sarah palin? c'mon people. get a grip with reality.

Posted by: aso at January 28, 2011 12:06 PM (BOvGl)

805 755
Palin isn't electable for a variety of reasons, #1 being her voice - she
seriously needs a voice coach to change that god awful screeching
fingernails on the blackboard voice of her's. Secondly, many
conservative women hate her as much as liberal women hate her - not a
good recipe for electability. Third, she is way too folksy and lacks a
certain gravitas - it's like watching the prom queen give her acceptance
speech. Lastly, she is very good looking - good looking women can't
possibly that smart can they? Where I think she can do the most good is
keeping a lid on the tea party which is like herding cats, but she can
do it and garner a lot of support for who ever the nominee will be.

I agree with you that her voice and general persona (she still comes across as the gal who wants to be the head cheerleader and most popular in school) - works against her. I also cannot get passed her skipping out on Alaska after less then three yrs. Just because all the right people hate her does not make her the bet candidate. For the sake of many things (she has way too high negative ratings with Independents), I hope she does not run, however what they will do to her family is reason number 1.

Posted by: Jimmy Page at January 28, 2011 12:07 PM (T1l1O)

806 Mitch Daniels or Haley Barbour. Sarah Palin, if she wins the nomination, Obama is winning the general.

Posted by: SnowSoul at January 28, 2011 12:08 PM (7kgOh)

807 Oh, and re the poll. I tested it and was able to vote a second time without doing anything, not even emptying my cache. So take the poll with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:08 PM (pW2o8)

808 Reagan was never a policy wonk... while folks like LBJ wre..

Reagan
was a major wonk. Amazingly, you're falling for the narrative about
Reagan sold to you by the MSM: amiable, inspiring dunce. Reagan was a
near-genius in every sense of the word, with both rhetorical AND
intellectual AND poltical skills to match. (He also wasn't a
super-duper true-blue conservative, despite post-facto mythmaking, but
who cares about that right now?) Reagan had a command of the issues
that rivaled any of his contemporaries, and combined that with an
ability to speak in a down-home nonthreatening manner that occasionally
soared to the level of inspiration.<<<Jeff B

The irony. It burns us, it does.

Posted by: Kerry at January 28, 2011 12:08 PM (a/VXa)

809 Maybe we ought to try to turn them into impassioned, well-informed, serious voters instead of just giving them a squish.

You can't. That's not the way human nature (or electoral politics) works. Most people engage in what is called "rational ignorance," tuning out the vast majority of political BS back-and-forth crap (because it is, indeed, largely irrelevant to their daily concerns) and only paying attention at the margins and during election time.

Just like Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. We deal with the electorate we're given, not the one we wish we could create.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 12:09 PM (NjYDy)

810 hey maybe we can use Mitt's Mormonism as a plus like the MSM did with Obamas total lack of record and weird / radical associations..

so anytime anyone comes anywhere near anythign we dont want to talk about like Romneycare or something we can yell ' you are a religious raaaaaacist!!' at them and shut them down...

just spitballing...

but I never considered Mitts religion being an issue. maybe we 'wishywashy moderates' are useful in this regard. we can makeup for the Baptist vote you all say wont accompany Romney.

Posted by: ginaswo at January 28, 2011 12:09 PM (WBTJo)

811 Let's grant your assertion that she "more than held her own" in that VP debate. What has she done since then? Why has she not put herself in ONE SINGLE FORUM where she would have to face tough questions and answer spontaneously since then? What, does she think that she passed her test and now doesn't have to engage her critics in an open debate anymore?
Why not use the Biden debate to address the claim as to how she'd do in an actual..you know.. debate.
I do concedeshe has avoided the press directly. ...and I do not blame her. Look at how they portray and spin her comments now. I pointed this out here previously; look at how they tried to trip 43 up with questions about arcania and minutae.
In a debate setting, the MFMwould be forced to ask the same questions to Palin and therefore allowing the audience to compare responses.
Go back and look at the debate. Judge for yourself. Don't just depend on my assertion about it

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 12:09 PM (AnTyA)

812 600 The other reason is that I don't think she's up to the job intellectually or experientially." That's what Ace said, and I pretty much agree with it.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:54 AM (NjYDy)
That citizen government thing really must suck for you two arrogant fucking geniuses. Sooner or later you latter day Clark Cliffords show your hands. I applaud your honesty if nothing else.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 28, 2011 11:01 AM (olKiY)
Captain Hate: the Spirit of the Tea Party

Posted by: Minuteman at January 28, 2011 12:09 PM (/3GFM)

813

Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4






/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}



I worked with Romney during the Olympic Games and got to
know him personally and professionally. I think hes as good as any of
the rest. Not a ringing endorsement, but
Im pretty burned-out, and bummed-out about both parties political sh*t anymore.

Posted by: huskytaco at January 28, 2011 12:09 PM (NtI5g)

814 Yep, reading further, his dad was a Mormon. Mitt is not a convert.


Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:05 PM (pW2o


Hmmm. I read on some blog or another he was, but I'll concede the point.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 12:10 PM (tJjm/)

815 For a Republican nominee, the media will be hostile. If she can't take on Katy "the Colon" Couric NOW, does she think she can cruise into the WH doing nothing but freaking Hannity?
Posted by: CoolCzech

Surprise! I agree with you here. This is why I already crossed Pawlenty of the list. he rolled over and begged on the whole civility crap after the Tucson shootings. There is no way hat he will suddenly grow a spine suficient to take on the MFM if he acts like that. Same with Guliani dodging a Senate seat pick up in New York.

Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2011 12:11 PM (R2fpr)

816 I think more would have been accomplished, Vic, had we not been given a pre-selected list of candidates.

Well, what I had called for was for the posting Morons to give their favorite candidate and why. But, subject to missing candidates this one was OK. As I posted earlier, even Bauchman is missing and she has actually expressed interest in running.

I am sure after the debates in may, one of the cobloggers will do another poll with the people who participated in the debate.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 12:11 PM (M9Ie6)

817 796
Palin because she's got balls, BALLS!
Look down the list and kindly point out anyone who is swingin'a big cast-iron pair.
Also, she's a hell of a lot more ready than she was two years ago.
The press and the non-press Democrats are afraid of her hence the
continuous attacks even after she's no longer in office.


They are not afraid of her, they want her as the nominee. They know that the more they attack her, the more her fans will circle the wagons around her and nominate her. Their choices are
1. Palin
2. Gingrich
3. Huckabee.

Posted by: Jimmy Page at January 28, 2011 12:11 PM (T1l1O)

818 At this point in the thread I'm seeing a lot of unfamiliar names reassuring us that Palin cannot possibly win (along with the usual suspects, PBUT). Time to jump.

Posted by: Kerry at January 28, 2011 12:12 PM (a/VXa)

819 Sorry but Ron Paul is the only guy crazy enough to even attempt to shink this govt. Forget 1998 spending levelsI want 1889 spending levels.

Posted by: iamimmortal at January 28, 2011 12:13 PM (+Uv5V)

820 Geesh Gabe, if that's all the 'Pubs can offer plus Sarah, no wonder you're pessimistic. I can't vote for any of them. Sarah if the MFM hadn't successfully damaged her so badly, but she's better off as a pundit anyway. Nope, add a none of the above, all is lost button.

Posted by: Gus Bailey at January 28, 2011 12:13 PM (/t1ba)

821 Reading up on the LDS site...

Mitt was bishop and later stake president in Belmont, MA, back in the late 80s and early 90s.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:14 PM (pW2o8)

822 For the record, the WSJ editorialized in the Bush years that it is the liberal media's goal to exhaust the Right. To make us crave a centrist candidate who does not make waves. The MSM dialed every detail "up to an 11" with Bush (and conservatives).

They worked hard to give the public a feeling of "make it go away", like they did to Bush/Cheney. And Pres Bush didn't even fight back.

Keep that in mind for future decision making.


Posted by: pam at January 28, 2011 12:14 PM (uDwml)

823 And it would help if Romney detractors would acknowledge that when he was talking about mandate at the state level. I have no problem with the mandate at the state level. I'm sick of paying higher taxes for people who can pay for health care pushing their care onto me. I would think you would support federalism and personal responsibility as well.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 28, 2011 11:30 AM (TMB3S)
Great argument for mandates. I'm sure you get along well with libs and lefties.
As for me and, as it turns out strangely enough, a rather large segment of the American electorate (dare I say - majority?), the mandate issue is a big fucking deal. So it's great that he's got this esoteric position on mandates, but the bottom line is a mandate is a mandate. He's got too much explaining to do, and the bottom line for me and that rather large number of American citizens is that it has fuckall to do withwhat level of governmentthe mandate is coming from.
But hey, we're apparently not supposed to be critical on this thread, so pass me some Skittles.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 28, 2011 12:15 PM (A/oSU)

824 Cuz Chuck Norris told me to.

Posted by: Huckabee at January 28, 2011 12:16 PM (nBE5A)

825 I think Obama wins no matter what. The Blood Libel Media have circled the wagons around him. Now that Hillary is out Obama is their only viable candidate. No RINO can beat him. Sarah might if people are pissed off enough.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 28, 2011 12:18 PM (o3bYL)

826 At this time its Palin. I'm not voting for any establishment insiders. all this talk of Obama being a near shoe in for reelection is going to look quite lame a year and a half from now.

Posted by: exceller at January 28, 2011 12:18 PM (jx2Td)

827 Stop using Palin hate as an excuse to nominate her. The Left and the MSM will hate WHOMEVER is nominated.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2011 12:19 PM (tJjm/)

828 At this point in the thread I'm seeing a lot of unfamiliar names
reassuring us that Palin cannot possibly win (along with the usual
suspects, PBUT). Time to jump.

Funny thing is, almost all the people I've seen here who are down on Palin are familiar regulars. Meanwhile most of the pro-Palin people (yourself included) are drive-by posters I've never seen before.

None of which means a thing, really. (Is there anything more tired than the "you're a troll/no, YOU'RE a troll!" debate?) But still, it's funny that you would go to that tactic.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 12:20 PM (NjYDy)

829 If you truly think she held her own, then you are in the unconvinceable crowd.. no need to discuss any further.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 11:50 AM (f9c2L)
Which one said we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon?? ..the 40 year foreign policy expert...or the snowbilly from Wasilla?

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 12:21 PM (AnTyA)

830 Palin or any conservative will have to run against the Dems, the BLM and the Old Guard Republicans. I belive onl7y Palin can arouse the kind of pasion it will take to beat that combo. If she wins they will go nuts and probably burn the cities.

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 28, 2011 12:21 PM (o3bYL)

831 611 Palin's "WTF" response to the State of the Union speech was the best out of any Republican (as usual). She cannot win, but the fact of the matter is that the economy will be improved enough in 2012 that Obama will have a cakewalk anyhow. So why not nominate someone who isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe and will not hesitate to rip the guy each and every day. Nominate a Romney or the like if you want a cowardly campaign. God Bless Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Greg at January 28, 2011 11:05 AM (QAxJ3)
I wouldn't be banking on an improvement in the economy, there are indicators of another recession coming around. With Obama's administration keeping its foot on the economy through regulation and plain old lawlessness, businesses are going to mark time until this hostile environment has passed with Obama's replacement.And I don't have high hopes for the Republican House to do much than keep him from making it worse.I believe Obama is going to continue screwing the pooch to the point that Huckabee would be a viable candidate.Don't count Hillary out either, even though she seems to have been worn out and would have to work to separate herselffrom the Obama stench.

Posted by: Minuteman at January 28, 2011 12:21 PM (/3GFM)

832 Well, seems we are don to nothing but stale repetition now. Time to bail.

Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2011 12:22 PM (M9Ie6)

833 You do see the contradiction there, don't you?
Okay,I assumeyou are saying that we are also letting the mediapick for us by picking who they don't like. But I don't think they have the self-control to pull off the old Brer Rabbit"Please, do anything, but just don't throw me in that brier patch!". Their hate is too viscereal and spontaneous... and they love the self-reinforcement of hearing themseleves agreeing with each other - it makes them feel like the cool kids! They really do fear her, and I believe with very good reason.

Posted by: sherlock at January 28, 2011 12:22 PM (BKPeM)

834 Palin-
She isn't a RINO, she is a go-getter, she is a non-lawyer.
Someone above mentioned not liking her voice? Do you like Obama's voice you friggen idiot? Maybe we should compare pant-creases, or eybrow grooming, lord knows the last thing we care about in this country is actual competence and fealty to the intent of the writers of the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: smarty at January 28, 2011 12:22 PM (cSJrw)

835 I like T-Paw. Sure he is soft-spoken, and rather passive, not my cup of tea, but he is excellent in town hall settings, answering questions.

AND, he is working damn hard for this nomination.



Posted by: pam at January 28, 2011 12:26 PM (uDwml)

836 Jeff B (82 --

I don't post much, and I don't think Palin cannot possibly win.

I just don't think addressing the internal fundamentals (the budget, spending) while the rest of the family holds a screaming match in the kitchen is productive.

Whether the rest of the family members in the kitchen agree with that by the end of the year remains to be seen.

Posted by: jwb7605 at January 28, 2011 12:26 PM (Qxe/p)

837 For someone hated by so many conservatives, Palin is doing pretty well here..
...types the guy who voted for Cain

Posted by: beedubya, not slavishly devotional at January 28, 2011 12:26 PM (AnTyA)

838 Gary Johnson - Paul Ryan
Gary Johnson - Allen West

Posted by: Reasoness at January 28, 2011 12:27 PM (tKfZv)

839 JOHN BOLTON

HERMAIN CAIN


Either one of them with Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at January 28, 2011 12:29 PM (/O9DD)

840 Rick. Perry.

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at January 28, 2011 12:29 PM (oAgab)

841 Last time around, I was vaguely with Mitt, and thought well of Rudy. After their debacles in the primaries, I need to see a little fire in a candidate before I will even give that much.

What the hell is Mitt or even Rudy willing to go to the wall for? Darned if I know, now that security isn't a big issue. And if you are a border security person, aren't both of them bad on that?

Posted by: Oldcat at January 28, 2011 12:33 PM (z1N6a)

842 By the way, the electoral map isn't as dire in 2012 as some are making it out to be.

Let's look at the electoral map:

States that I think are gone for the GOP in 2010: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa. Colorado is the real bitch here, but the demographics are just fucking us over right now. Ken Buck's loss in particular seals it for me.

States that I think are coming back to the GOP for sure: Virginia, NC, Indiana. VA is the biggest question mark here, but in between the McDonnell whompin' and the 2010 ass-kicking, I think we're taking it back, especially if we get a better candidate to run for Senate than George 'retread' Allen.

At that point, plus the already-given blue and red states, it's 248-213 in favor of the GOP.

States that are the real battlegrounds: Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Michigan. These are where the rubber meets the road. Of these five states, I think we are pretty well positioned to take back Ohio and Florida. ALL WE NEED TO GET TO 270 IS FLORIDA. We could lose every other one and we're still winners. But if we lose FL, we would need Ohio plus any other state (i.e. OH + NH puts us barely over the top). And that's before we talk about formerly 'blue' states that are really going to be up for grabs, like Wisconsin (which I've been on the ground in for the last year or so...that state is swinging *HARD* to our side) or Michigan.

So I reject Gabriel Malor's starting assumption that the electoral math should make us pessmists. That's only if you think that states like VA, NC, and IN are going to remain in Obama's column. I think those were one-shot 2008 deals.

We really have a chance to win here, folks. A guy like Mitch Daniels gives us a chance to roll Portman-style through Ohio and Florida, whilst sealing up IN and VA and NC. Maybe give us WI, make MI a toss-up. NH is anyone's guess, and I'll assume it stays blue.

But this isn't a longshot by any means.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 12:34 PM (NjYDy)

843 For someone hated by so many conservatives, Palin is doing pretty well here..

A couple of thoughts on that.

I think the commenters here are, on average, more conservative than Republicans are in general. So the lesson I am gleaning is that amongst conservatives, she may not even have a plurality (Palin v non-Palin).

It is possible to vote more than once without any gymnastics.


From the comments, I'd say there's a fair amount of Palin fatigue. Those of us who were enthusiastic about her as a VP candidate seem to fall into two basic groups: people whose enthusiasm for her has intensified and people whose interest in her as a POTUS candidate either doesn't exist or has waned. I'd put myself in the latter category. I think there's probably at least an even split between those two categories. I also think that Palin has not added to her base of support since 2008. That's a concern.

I agree with Vic (?), that it's fruitless to point fingers at people for why their enthusiasm has waned. Some of us may be sheep, some of us may be RINOS!, some of us may be reacting to the media exposure, some of us may be reacting to her stepping down, etc etc. None of that changes that a good number of Republicans will not vote for her in the primary.

Now, there is misinformation about Palin out there, just as there is about Romney and the others, so some headway can be gained by putting out correct information. In that sense, Palin's Alaska show is a fine move -- because she is a likable, not a witch, and so some undecideds might see her as a real person and not the cartoon.

But I don't see how that image work helps address qualifications/competencies/accomplishments. In terms of substance, I don't think saying she's backed successful GOP candidates will sway many people to say "OK, she'd be a great POTUS."

Anyway, that's my take.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:35 PM (pW2o8)

844 Fuck, I had my math wrong. I had NY accidentally marked for the GOP on my map. I need to recalculate. We're going to need both FL and OH plus one more to win.

Okay, so it's going to be a harder slog, but still -- not at all unworkable.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 12:38 PM (NjYDy)

845 I'm not really that crazy about any of them.
I voted for Palin because she she seems to be the one most committed to smaller government.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 28, 2011 12:39 PM (goVpI)

846 Funny thing, but I am a regular and I also notice a lot of unfamiliar sailors manning the rails of the U.S.S. She-Cannot-Win.

Not saying that they are wrong or trolls or anything. Not everyone posts on every thread. I merely note that Jeff B. is either blind or full of shit. Again.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 28, 2011 12:39 PM (/joDP)

847 I like the results so far, with Palin and Herman Cain 1-2. I like Palin for her record and her disposition, plus the fact that she drives the opposition to the kind of ugliness we saw after Tucson; people saw it and they don't like it. Plus, she would kick Opey's ass in any debate. She's got far more going than even many conservatives give her credit for - if one can honestly picture Opey in the White House, then one can certainly see Palin there as well, with far better qualifications and a noble agenda for the country. I like Herman Cain because he has a very successful business record and yes, he's black, which will neutralize the race card. That will work in his favor head to head against Opey or any other race-baiting liberal asshole.
America doesn't have much time left under this regime. Time for bold steps.

Posted by: YFS at January 28, 2011 12:39 PM (3BeL9)

848 844
Fuck, I had my math wrong. I had NY accidentally marked for the GOP on my map. I need to recalculate.

Maybe we could get NJ to invade NY once Christie is done fixing things there.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:40 PM (pW2o8)

849 I agree with Vic (?), that it's fruitless to point
fingers at people for why their enthusiasm has waned. Some of us may be
sheep, some of us may be RINOS!, some of us may be reacting to the
media exposure, some of us may be reacting to her stepping down, etc
etc. None of that changes that a good number of Republicans will not
vote for her in the primary.

Anyway, that's my take.


Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:35 PM (pW2o
Well, that's their right. And the same could be said of everyone else on the list. I do find it strange that there is so much anger here about an 'unelectable' candidate that there never was about Alan Keyes.
Not from you, that I recall, Y.

Posted by: Oldcat at January 28, 2011 12:41 PM (z1N6a)

850 Herman Cain's a good pick from this list, but doesn't have enough face recognition yet. So, I picked Palin. Know what my dream ticket would be though: Rubio / Ryan '12.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:41 PM (xm1A1)

851 Huckabee: The assbringing up the rear.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 28, 2011 12:42 PM (goVpI)

852 By the way, if you want to play with electoral scenarios, go here:

http://www.270towin.com/

Great site, it even allows you to do delegate breakdowns in ME and NE.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 12:42 PM (NjYDy)

853 Hopefully Romney will grow a set this time and stop with all the pandering.

Gee, exactly what we need, a 'hope' that a candidate will change their colors. I think not. Let's vote principle for once. Romney would be another McCain.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:43 PM (xm1A1)

854 Thun, Pawlenty, and Daniels. Don't know them well enough. Don't know whether they're more small-government, like Reagan, or pro-bullshit, like Huckabee.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 28, 2011 12:44 PM (goVpI)

855 Huckabee: The assbringing up the rear.

You would think, but an awful lot of church goers are tricked by that asshole. Total sham artist. All you have to do is look at his record, but people vote based on the big brown eyes and Southern drawl instead of their fucking brain.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:44 PM (xm1A1)

856 Sarah Palin. She has leadership qualities. She is out front on all the issues. Speaks unequivocally. Record of accomplishments. Challenges establishment. Personable. Background in common American lifestyle. Right on all the issues.

Posted by: scrubjay at January 28, 2011 12:45 PM (PJDMU)

857 @84 Not saying that they are wrong or trolls or anything. Not everyone posts on every thread.

To be honest, there are some threads where the vitriol against anyone criticizing Palin is so intense, that even I won't post a comment. This thread is meant to be a free for all and is relatively calm.

I bet most of them are lurkers. I haven't seen a lot of disinformation floated from that group - no more so than the disinformation posted about other candidates, anyway, which I chalk up to mistakes/confusion - so I would tend to just take them on face value.

And what is the value of someone speculating about how others would vote? Not much, really. About the same as folks who say Baptists won't vote for Mormons.

I'm more interested in the "I won't vote for X because s/he's Y" comments. As well as the folks who say their two favorites, where one is very different from teh other. For example, the Christie or Palin comments are interesting, since they are pretty different philosophically. What they share is a willingness to fight and speak plainly.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:45 PM (pW2o8)

858 Love Palin's fire, but she will never win the educated women's vote

Ha. Never?

As a highly educated woman looking for someone who is FEARLESS to champion conservative issues without apology or compromise, I'd say you are wrong, wrong, wrong.


Posted by: Redhead Infidel at January 28, 2011 12:46 PM (/O9DD)

859 843. "I think the commenters here are, on average, more conservative than Republicans are in general."
Following a blog run by GOP regulars. Indies are a bimodal population, 60% so-con, 40% so-lib, straddling the GOP faithful.
I'd say Libertarians are the over-represented population here. But then I'm a bitter clinger.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 12:46 PM (/g2vP)

860 Daniels. He is the best Governor in America... proven record, no nonsense, Princeton grad, really high poll numbers in Indiana. He would make Obama look like a moron in the debates.
downside...... he will not be giving roaring speeches where people pass out with love.

My second pick is Palin. She is conservative and doesnt apologize for it. She has had everything thrown at her and still stands. I worry about her not being electable....dont care what dems think of her.. its what conservatives think of her.
Dem's/media arent voting for our candidate anyway..so who cares what they think..

Posted by: Timbo at January 28, 2011 12:47 PM (ph9vn)

861 I like Herman Cain because he has a very
successful business record and yes, he's black, which will neutralize
the race card. That will work in his favor head to head against Opey or
any other race-baiting liberal asshole.

America doesn't have much time left under this regime. Time for bold steps.

Posted by: YFS at January 28, 2011 12:39 PM (3BeL9)
Welcome to our planet, alien visitor. You have much to learn.

Posted by: Oldcat at January 28, 2011 12:47 PM (z1N6a)

862 Sarah Palin. She has leadership qualities. She is out front on all the
issues. Speaks unequivocally. Record of accomplishments. Challenges
establishment. Personable. Background in common American lifestyle.
Right on all the issues.

I agree whole-heartedly. I think she has a good chance. The constant drum beat of slander from the left has taken it's toll on the collective conscious of the country making it seem like she doesn't have a chance, but I think she could pull it out. And I think she could end up being quite Reaganesque. Would be the perfect thumb in the eye of the establishment types like that blue haired bat Mrs. Bush Sr.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:48 PM (xm1A1)

863 Bolton-Palin, in either order.

Posted by: Alec Rawls at January 28, 2011 12:48 PM (kTTUz)

864 Palin. Why? Because she's Palin.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 28, 2011 12:49 PM (swuwV)

865 Pawlenty seems like a decent guy, and remains quite popular in the state that gave us Al Franken and chose Jesse Ventura.

Which really bothers me.
Arnold Schwarzenegger -- similar situation.

I'd be cautious about getting the same result.

Posted by: jwb7605 at January 28, 2011 12:49 PM (Qxe/p)

866 I can't believe Palin got 42% HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

SEE YOU IN 2016

Posted by: Max Power at January 28, 2011 12:51 PM (q177U)

867 I can't believe Palin got 42% HAHAHAHA!!!!!!
SEE YOU IN 2016

Go back to dailyKOS you Fuck. If I wanted to hear your opinion, I'd fart and/or start watching an alphabet network.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:52 PM (xm1A1)

868 Please, what is with all this nonsense that Palin is a polarizing figure? It's the left and the MFM (BIRM) who portray her as polarizing because they hate and fear her. Political polarization is a feature of the MFM, not Sarah Palin. Grow some f'n cajones, people.
Or say hello to Opey's second term.

Posted by: YFS at January 28, 2011 12:52 PM (3BeL9)

869 . Funny thing is, almost all the people I've seen here who are down on
Palin are familiar regulars. Meanwhile most of the pro-Palin people
(yourself included) are drive-by posters I've never seen before.

JeffB. Just because people don't post comments doesn't mean they aren't regulars here. Who would want to jump into the Palin bashing mosh pit if they support her, at risk of getting screeched at by Ace. And you.

Many of the vocal regulars here who routinely spout off unending negatives about Palin have succeeded in driving her support underground.
Palin bashers can only pray the hq is an anomaly and that this isn't a country-wide phenomenon...

Posted by: Derak at January 28, 2011 12:53 PM (CjpKH)

870 Please, what is with all this nonsense that Palin is a polarizing
figure? It's the left and the MFM (BIRM) who portray her as polarizing
because they hate and fear her. Political polarization is a feature of
the MFM, not Sarah Palin. Grow some f'n cajones, people.

Exactly. It's one of the reasons they rag on her as much as they can... they know she's the real danger.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:53 PM (xm1A1)

871 Disappointed in all the Palin votes. And no, I'm not a Sarah hater. Much the opposite. But I'm smart enough to realize how polarizing/hated she is, and how nominating her will alienate virtually all the independents that crossed over last year and are critical for winning an election.

Do 42% of the folks here even want the Republican nominee to win? And don't quote poll numbers of Reagan to me. Sarah Palin may be many things, but she's no Reagan.

Did the Christine O'Donnell mess teach no one anything?

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 28, 2011 12:53 PM (QxGmu)

872 Jeff - Cool site.. thanks!

Everyone should go there and start playing with states.. It's a real eye-opener.

I changed Florida, Indiana, No Carolina, Ohio and Nevada from Dem to Republican and Obama still wins! I even added Wisconsin after that and he still wins!

It will next to impossible to beat him, even if we had a good candidate.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 28, 2011 12:54 PM (f9c2L)

873 #868
Political polarization is a feature of the MFM, not Sarah Palin.

Exactly correct.
... or so I read daily in pretty much every newspaper and magazine daily. They seem to be too modest to credit themselves, though.

Posted by: jwb7605 at January 28, 2011 12:55 PM (Qxe/p)

874 Hey, has Hollowhead logged in to assure you all how unpopular Palin is? snort!
How many bitter mods are complaining about the Palin cult today, hmmm?
How about the GOP trogs who show up on threads to spread the gospel of Palin unelectability? Did they show up today, or are they ducking? How's Mitt Romney's electability looking to everybody?

Posted by: guy who doesn't have 2 hours to read 850 comments at January 28, 2011 12:56 PM (K/USr)

875 #833,
either way you're trusting MSM judgment.
If you vote for whom the MSM hates, you're saying that they are rational enough and calm enough and wise enough to make a sound judgment about whom is the most electable, most effective, most conservative candidate, and then they make a deliberate decision to emotionally gang up on that person. You are saying that they aren't shallow people driven by shallow identity issues. You're sayingthey aren't dumb .
See the problem?

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 12:56 PM (epBek)

876 mrp at #618 said:

2) Caroline Glick puts it succinctly in her recent column published by the Jewish Press: "The Aim Of Blood Libels" (LINK). An excerpt:

What distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the U.S. and makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views of the Left's opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in a way no other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she does not seek to win over leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.

OUTSTANDING.

Thanks for that link, mrp.

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at January 28, 2011 12:58 PM (/O9DD)

877 "disappointed in all the Palin votes" "but I don't hate her, much the opposite"

So why is she polarizing again? Because of what? You have fallen for the drumbeat. So essentially, you let the news vote for you. Congratulations, lemming.

Posted by: Henry in Tucson at January 28, 2011 12:58 PM (xm1A1)

878 Please, what is with all this nonsense that Palin is a polarizing
figure? It's the left and the MFM (BIRM) who portray her as polarizing
because they hate and fear her. Political polarization is a feature of
the MFM, not Sarah Palin. Grow some f'n cajones, people.

I think what has happened is she has shifted from being an inspirational figure amongst Republicans - let's face it, she lit up McCain's campaign - to being someone about whom no criticism can be leveled without her fiercest supporters accusing the folks making the criticisms (or even observations) of being RINOs or sheep or whatever. In that sense, she is polarizing.

Telling people they don't have balls because they think she is polarizing is kind of evidence of how polarizing she is. It's not her as a person so much as it's a vocal group of her supporters, but the effect is the same because effectively it's coming from her campaign.

We need to be able to talk about our candidates without it being turned into a purity test. Palin has good points and she has weak points, just like anyone else. That has nothing to do with the media -- that's just reality.

Deflecting any flaws people find with Palin the candidate onto the evil media is not helping Palin refine her candidacy, imo.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 12:58 PM (pW2o8)

879 Wow, John thune's hair got over 200 votes. So much for the power of the mitch mcconnell endorsement. To the 200: where do I find a list of this guy's accomplishments? Or a list of his jobs in the private sector?

Posted by: guy who doesn't have 2 hours to read 850 comments at January 28, 2011 12:59 PM (K/USr)

880 Cain should be removed from the list. People who have voted for him need counseling, as they are still suffering from white guilt.

Posted by: More enlightened than you at January 28, 2011 01:00 PM (Bs8Te)

881 At this point in the thread I'm seeing a lot of unfamiliar names reassuring us that Palin cannot possibly win (along with the usual suspects, PBUT).

So you're saying that you're seeing two kinds of people against Palin--those you are familiar with, and those you aren't?
Because I'm guessing you are probably right.
In other news, it turns out that everyone who supports Palin is either a member of her immediate family, or else not a member of her immediate family.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 01:00 PM (epBek)

882 The fact that Palin received half of the votes in that poll affirms my long held belief that a lot of Democrats are visiting this website and creating false and misleading impressions deliberately on the phony pretext that they are Independents or Republicans. The only way that Obama will be absolutely and positivelyassured of winning in 2012 will be if Palin is the Republican candidate. Democrats are praying for it, as their votes in that poll indicate. Wishful thinking has always been their reality. But it ain't going to happen.

Posted by: Brian at January 28, 2011 01:01 PM (sYrWB)

883 Herman Cain
I liked him when he ran for senate
Good head for buisness which we desperately need.
Comes from an AMERCIAN black southern background (choke on that demorat)
Worked his way up by hard work from a poor family.
True inspiration.
Maybe with Marco Rubio as VP

Posted by: leperous at January 28, 2011 01:01 PM (Q6qGS)

884 871--But I'm smart enough to realize how polarizing/hated she is,
Oh yeah, you're a real genius. The candidate kicking ass is hated. Let me finish the thought for you. The candidate in single digits is beloved, and can unite the party....if only he could beg a few votes. AH, HAHAHAHHA

Posted by: guy who doesn't have 2 hours to read 850 comments at January 28, 2011 01:02 PM (K/USr)

885 834. "She isn't a RINO, she is a go-getter, she is a non-lawyer."
Thread winner, IMHO. Take all the party faves, total them together and FAIL.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 01:03 PM (/g2vP)

886 Ugh. I hate to say it, but Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his positions, but America's #1 problem right now is out of control Federal spending and regulation, and he's the only person on that list that I can say with absolute certainty has no pretenses about wanting to fix this problem and having the fortitude to do what it takes - even if it means shutting down the government in a budget battle - to get things done.

Sad to say, he's the only one with enough of a perfectly consistent track record to earn my trust.

Posted by: Evil Red Scandi at January 28, 2011 01:03 PM (M+Vm5)

887 The "pragmatists" are the jackasses that gave us McCain- never ever forget that. They thought he would get a fair break in the media- really. Anyone stupid enough to have believed the above is not fit to comment on who should be the 2012 nominee- they have demonstrated that they are too stupid to be idea-leaders, and may yet be too stupid to follow the winner.
Anyone that doesn't demoralize the GOP voters will beat Obama. No-name politicians- no traction and the media will make sure they never get it. Romney- Mr. socialized hair gel and tanning booth will demoralize people.
Sarah, she will fire up the right, which is bigger than the left right now. And more independents will swing to her vs Obama, since all the polling shows that the independents are breaking away from Imam Chairman Mao Obama.
The MSM/Establishment talking heads are setting the narrative of unelectability, and the jackasses mentioned in my first paragraph are the ones buying it.

Posted by: smarty at January 28, 2011 01:03 PM (cSJrw)

888 Umm, no Trump or Bolton on the ballot? Both have name recognition, although Trump would have a much larger war chest to work with IMO.
Trump/ Bolton?
Bolton/Palin?
Trump/Palin?
Since we're a center-right capitalist country, I think it's about time we elected a center-right capitalist president. Symmetry, and all that.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 28, 2011 01:04 PM (b6qrg)

889 So why is she polarizing again? Because of what? You have fallen for
the drumbeat. So essentially, you let the news vote for you.
Congratulations, lemming.

You fail at understanding. The true lemmings are the so-called independents (swing voters) with no spine or true sense of political leaning. They bend to the will of the political winds. Yet they are the votes which must be captured in order to win a presidency. The same people that were swept up in hope 'n' change that ran from it when the tea party gave them an adult alternative are who we're talking about. And by and large, they already hate Palin. She's not going to change their minds now.

You cannot get around this fact, Palin-bots.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 28, 2011 01:05 PM (QxGmu)

890 Herman Cain beat out Trump by a massive margin on a candidate "tournament" over at RedState. When it comes to business and economic issues, Cain would beat Trump's bankrupted ass into the ground.

Posted by: Redhead Infidel at January 28, 2011 01:07 PM (/O9DD)

891 Ace will cite his blog poll as proof that Palin, who only received 42%, is disliked by 58% of her own party. but he will not say who he supports, because that guy couldn't poll above singe digits, and thus is arguably disliked by over 90% of his own party.
Made it easy for you, and saved you about 20 minutes reading the post.

Posted by: guy who likes to predict Ace's next blog post at January 28, 2011 01:08 PM (K/USr)

892 guy like Mitch Daniels gives us a chance to roll Portman-style through Ohio and Florida, whilst sealing up IN and VA and NC. Maybe give us WI, make MI a toss-up.
Mitch Daniels is my candidate, but to be successful a candidate has to be able to rev up the base, not just apeal to centrists. I'm not convinced Daniels has what it takes to toss a little red meat now and again. Here's hoping.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 01:09 PM (epBek)

893 I think Palin's better as a rabble-rouser, but I think we have our priorities wrong as of today.

The MFM is clearly still making your decisions for you (a lot of you), and that's what we need to stop FIRST.

We will lose and keep losing as long as that's the case. We would have won bigger last November if we hadn't been listening to them (and if Pelosi and Reid hadn't self-destructed with that pretending-it-would-be-okay crap).

Now we're complaining about them making the decision in the primary for us and letting them do it anyway.

Someone said their media strategy against Palin is too effective to beat - are you gonna pull the dirt in after you or do we have to shovel it? That's complete and utter surrender to MFM power - they control the horizontal, they control the vertical. If we can't stand up to them we might as well stay home.

Seriously, we need to get over the MFM's reactionary crap and make our own decisions, and TELL THEM SO.

It's like y'all forget they pulled the "We Like Maverick" stunt in the primaries last time, and then dropped McCain like a hot potato as soon as he was the candidate. They picked our candidate. Don't let them do it again.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 28, 2011 01:10 PM (bxiXv)

894 The "pragmatists" are the jackasses that gave us McCain- never ever forget that.

And McCain gave us Palin. Your simplistic world view, 0, reality, 1.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 28, 2011 01:10 PM (epBek)

895 I was a big Pence supporter, so I am crushed that he changed his mind. I voted for Cain here. I think he has what we need right now - business acumen. Cain/Bolton would be a great combination - business skill, foreign policy chops.

On Palin. I absolutely love her - where she is. She is someone who takes the heat and throws it right back at them. She can say what she wants, when she wants to and doesn't have to worry about whether that will help her electability. If she runs, she'll have to watch what she says. If she's the nominee, she'll get so much shit thrown at her she'll never have a chance to lay out her vision for the country. I love her as a voice for my cause - the conservative cause.

I agree with Redhead Infidel, I am an educated woman who would definitely vote for her, but I do know many "educated" women (read pro-choice) who absolutely hate her and would do anything to tear her down.

Posted by: pforeman at January 28, 2011 01:13 PM (S7Xpi)

896 Democrats win when conservative voters don't vote GOP by either staying home or voting third party because the GOP candidate isn't someone they will vote for rather than simply vote against the Dem candidate.

This is why Ford lost, Reagan won(Big), Bush I won and then lost, Dole lost, Bush II squeaked by, and McCain lost.

So, who would conservative voters turn out and vote for?


Posted by: davidt at January 28, 2011 01:13 PM (9Pzy7)

897 You know, after reading a lot of these posts, I think we do need to run Palin. Not because she'll win because, let's face it, the Conservative movement is still so fractured that there's no clear candidate for the Executive branch. Ultimately, the Executive branch is about a sense of leadership and unity that America really doesn't have right now. The Left has its act together enough to have an Executive presence. The Conservative culture has gotten so wimpy lately, I don't think it has enough in it to fight the MSM and lefty culture in 2012.

But if we run Sarah, then people will finally be forced to, at the very least, admit she's part of Conservative culture. Because her critics have fair points, but if they can't get over the fact that, in almost every respect, she is Conservative America, then they're really just hoping for a different elitist set in the White House. And fuck that, frankly. I'm not a Conservative because I luve Country Club assholes, guns, and killing criminals. I'm Conservative because I believe in the American spirit. I mean, I love guns too, but that's besides.

If we run Sarah, we have a chance to finally, once and for all, break how MSM wants America to view itself. If we do that, it'll be worth the loss, because America will fight Obama and his culture all the more. If we run a weaker candidate who goes running to MSM for love (which it seems all on table will currently do)... maaaybe we'll win. But a win for McCain back in 2008 was a win for Big Government Conservatives, and, in a weird way, we're better off now.

Posted by: William at January 28, 2011 01:14 PM (+zM6M)

898 People who have done diddly squat in recent history and for whom I have zilch interest in voting for or supporting: Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin

Huckabee: Banjo-strumming, lazy eyed, morbidly obese, bible thumping, convict-freeing, illegal rewarding, nanny state corporate suck up with all the folksy warmth of canned rat shit. Cannot say enough bad things about him, but he might win IA, since he did last time.

Mitt Romney: Screwed up MA and created the model for Obamacare, wishy washy, also ran notorious for flip flopping and saying anything but the right thing to get elected. Guaranteed and proven loser who Republicans will therefore nominate, because it's "his turn."

Newt Gingrich: Known for making out on a sofa with Nancy Pelosi while shilling for the AGW lobby and economy-killing cap and trade, getting the GOP blamed for shutting down the government in the 90's and an inability to keep his dick in his pants while leading the moral crusade again Clinton.

Rudy Giuliani: Abortions, personal baggage, corruption scandals, evil lisp, short, bald, stoop-shouldered and looks like nosferatu yet dressed in drag. The last time he ran, his numerous mentions of 911 became a punchline, yet when muslims wanted to build a mosque there, nary a peep. He certainly couldn't be bothered to help the NY state GOP recruit good candidates. In fact, if he wanted to be taken seriously, he should have run for senate or the governor's mansion here first, but people thought he was dying of cancer.

Sarah Palin: She seems to want it more than anyone else here, and it would be entertaining with her in the race. She is so disorganized and resistant to input, thin-skinned, surrounds herself with sycophants, I don't expect her to go far in the primaries. Maybe she'll pull it off. But she turns off more than just progressives, and has not done much lately to be taken more seriously.

Novelty candidates who might capture 3% of the popular vote: Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty

Tim Pawlenty: He wanted the veep spot badly last time and figures it might be his again, after all he has the vaunted executive experience, is acceptable to social conservatives, NRA members and Nascar fans, and might bring his home state over to the GOP column. But he's too boring to be number 1.

Ron Paul: Go away, crazy old man!

Herman Cain: People who believe Obama only won because he's black support this FOX contributor. Do you really want to make this about race?

Enter the new contestants: John Thune, Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels

Haley Barbour: By the same token that nominating a black man you've seen on FOX is a bad idea (look to recent midterms for how well self-funding candidates typically perform), optics count for something. The governor of a reliably red state who grew up during the CRM will be too easily defeated by America's first black president. Americans want to look to the future, and only desperate retreads seem interested in taking on Obama this time.

John Thune: He looks like Robert Redford or JFK, in other words, he looks the part. He has a reputation as a giant killer by taking out Tom Daschle. The Democrats didn't even run anyone against him this time. He could run a good ground game in IA and sweep the primaries with that momentum. His record is suitably conservative, he is new and best personifies the key issues for the 2012 election: undoing Obamacare and tackling the deficit, making Washington less partisan / making government work and the wars.


Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 01:15 PM (mHQ7T)

899 Oh, yeah, Mitch Daniels screwed the pooch with his dumb truce comment. He basically announced he expects to lose before he even announced a run.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 01:17 PM (mHQ7T)

900 Dear God not Donald Trump. He just hosted a huge fundraiser for Rahm Emanuel here in Chicago. He's a bewigged Bloomberg. He'll take your guns and liberty. Oh, but he'll play real tough with the Chinese at his next cocktail party. Fuck Donald Trump.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 28, 2011 01:17 PM (6ftzF)

901 Whenever Ms. Palin's nameis mentioned, the sock puppets come out in profusion to support her. You realize, don't you, that if they get their way, 308,000,000 sock puppets and 11 actual people will be voting for Ms. Palin in 2012?

Posted by: Brian at January 28, 2011 01:17 PM (sYrWB)

902 @766

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 11:51 AM (NjYDy)

Fair enough.

Daniels can't win it though. For the following reasons,
1) He's about three feet tall with awful hair. Telegenically he loses against Obama- badly. I can already see the SNL skits with somebody "walking" with shoes on their knees and a quart of Crisco in their hair. I know, I know but just hear me out.
2) His instant surrender on cultural issues brands him as a RINO...he won't make it through the primaries. Unless he gets the crossover Dim vote.

T-Paw is the oatmeal of the candidates. A bland nothing that's good for you. That stupid web-commercial shows a guy who knows how little he bring to the campaign in terms of presentation.

I see this election differently.

To a certain extent, 2008 and 2012 will be "talking dog" elections.

That's all Obama was really. A fun novelty. Everybody wanted to vote for the talking dog. Nobody was paying attention to what the talking dog was saying. They simply wanted to vote "talking dog".

People who voted "talking dog" probably will give the talking dog another chance unless a new talking dog comes along.

Palin (and to a lesser extent, Cain cause Obama got there first) are our only "talking dog" candidates.

Palin's chance to prove herself will be the primary debates. Check her out on youtube, she's very good.

Like Reagan, she can cut through the MSM's distortions in the debate format.

If she can't do it, then she can't. If Daniels is all that he should be willing to take her on point by point.

May the best man or woman win.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 28, 2011 01:20 PM (I49Jm)

903 11 actual people will be voting for Ms. Palin in 2012

Then it will be hard for her to get the nomination. Issue resolved.

Posted by: toby928 at January 28, 2011 01:20 PM (GTbGH)

904 He just hosted a huge fundraiser for Rahm Emanuel here in Chicago. He's a bewigged Bloomberg.
Yuck, if true. That would take him off my list, fer shur.
Would you perchance have a link?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 28, 2011 01:21 PM (b6qrg)

905 Ryan is my top choice. However, he's said he's not running but is open to being VP. I'd settle for a Barbor/Ryan 2012 ticket with a Ryan/Rubio 2020 ticket.

Posted by: Carl Paulus at January 28, 2011 01:23 PM (OV3Cg)

906
#902 -- You're wrong. Daniels is over 4 feet tall.
However:
"If she can't do it, then she can't. If Daniels is all that he should be willing to take her on point by point"

Right on the money!

Posted by: jwb7605 at January 28, 2011 01:24 PM (Qxe/p)

907 Jon at 320 and 329 - Bingo. Pathetic Americans would, indeed, vote for the taller candidate. If all of us are "the base" and if Daniels were the nominee, we'd all be scratching our heads, wondering why the rest of the country couldn't see his obvious superiority over BHO.
Thune is tall and handsome, which might attract the ditzy women who won't vote for Palin, but who voted for O because "it would be so wonderful to have the first black president."
Cain, as competent as he might be, and enabling the liberals among us to have a "see, we can do it too" moment, is not going to woo away a large % of the black vote. If you truly believe black voters who backed O are going to switch from someone offering handouts to someone expecting personal responsibility and a strong work ethic ... and please forgive that snarky, racist observation ... look at the way they vilified Condy Rice and Clarence Thomas and any other conservative black Republican.
Pawlenty seems to be taking stronger-talking lessons and getting better at it, albeit his voice on his new commercial is still a little too soft; but he's also getting better known.
Daniels/Bolton. or not.

Posted by: adair at January 28, 2011 01:27 PM (DRIc3)

908 I just worked from the ballot. I spent most of this week on my blogpounding home my view that the candidate who can elucidate the issues the best will win. Things like closing the Mexican border, drilling, scaling back regulations and government in general, strong national defense with a missile (or Phaser) shield, tangible things like these will win.
This election may be won at the kitchen table.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 28, 2011 01:28 PM (b6qrg)

Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at January 28, 2011 01:32 PM (hyRD4)

910 Sarah Palin is the only one on that list who has any chance of winning the election. How sad is the GOP. The majority on that list are RINOs who would ban guns or use big government to do "good things" a la Bush 43. The other few really have no chance despite their credentials and conservatism. And Ron Paul is our in-party Perot. Ron pork-loving Paul who would have us stick our heads in the sands waiting for the next attack. Dear God what a pitiful lot. Yeah, Sarah Palin has the best chance on that list. Shes' the only one with the gumption to go after Obama, the name recognition, the charisma, and running against Obama gives her the perfect foil to any criticism about her lack of experience. Even then it's an uphill battle of epic proportions. But none of this discussion matters because the Dems will flood our open primaries and nominate the MSM picked loser. Just like they did with McCain. And Dole.

In the end, America needs drastic change that is unspeakable and unfathomable to the American public. Baby steps won;t work. We don't have the time. America is a failed state. And I'm not sure anyone on that list is willing and able to lead the American people to those drastic changes. Maybe Palin. Maybe she wants to. But can she?

Ugh. I'm going to go clean my guns and check my food supplies. Nothing defeats my pessimism like knowing I'm prepared.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 28, 2011 01:33 PM (6ftzF)

911 Cheney/Voldamort 2012!!!!

Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at January 28, 2011 01:33 PM (hyRD4)

912 Tough call, Huckabee would do great as a President, but not at this particular point in time.....right now, America needs PALIN.

Posted by: doug at January 28, 2011 01:33 PM (gUGI6)

913
There's two questions being asked here, not just one:

1. Who do you think has the best chance of winning?

2. Who do you think would do the best job as chief executive?

In answer to question 1, I vote "none of the above". I don't see any of these people having the charisma, the strength of character, and the organization skills to defeat the Democratic Party's government/union/big business/bank/media cartel. Call it eeyorism if you wish, but that's how I see it.

In answer to question 2, I eliminate immediately all candidates who don't have executive experience. That leaves governor (and Rudy's experience as mayor of NYC is equivalent). Of those, the ones I think have done the best job running their respective states/municipalities are Barbour, Daniels, Giuliani, and Palin, in that order. I think any of the four would do a reasonable job in managing the domestic side of thing, though whether they'd be persuasive enough to talk the country off the ledge is anybody's guess.

What really bothers me, though, is that, with the possible exception of Palin, none of the candidates appears to have a well-articulated of America's place in the world: of what sets us apart from other nations, how other nations and cultures are challenging us, and what we should do about it. Obama does have such a vision; of course, it's completely wrong, but he does have one. You can't beat something with nothing; with the exception of Palin (and Newt), the guys in the list would be going into the fight with an empty magazine.

Posted by: Brown Line at January 28, 2011 01:34 PM (VrNoa)

914 I don't want anybody who ran for anything president-related in 2008. Palin, Mitt, Huckabee, Rudy... the whole lot of 'em can piss off.

I looked at Herman Cain's website, I had never heard of him before (don't get his radio show in Dallas). Even though he has all this real life, real job business experience, he doesn't appear to have much in the way of the bullshit phony political experience. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, because the dude seems to be a business genius.

I guess for me, on this list, it comes down between Cain, Mitch Daniels and John Thune's fivehead.

Posted by: Jarrod at January 28, 2011 01:35 PM (OzXHr)

915
#908
This election may be won at the kitchen table.

I'll take prescient remarks for $500, Alex.

Posted by: jwb7605 at January 28, 2011 01:35 PM (Qxe/p)

916 Thune is tall and handsome, which might attract the ditzy women who
won't vote for Palin, but who voted for O because "it would be so
wonderful to have the first black president."

Single women voters often hold advanced degrees and run their workplaces. They are the independent demographic who usually decide elections and vote Democrat more often than not. These women hate Palin, because they had already decided on Obama last time and resent her putting down education, the one accomplishment in their life they can take pride in. Fair or not, these women have been trained by the media to take Palin's disdain for the "elites" as a personal affront. They think she uses sexuality to get ahead, as well. So, you would do well to call them "ma'am" and not ditzy, if you want their votes.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 01:36 PM (mHQ7T)

917 Palin! PALIN! PAAAAAAAAAALIN!

Is that really even a choice?

Posted by: CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE STUDENT at January 28, 2011 01:36 PM (3UVPc)

918 Yuck, if true. That would take him off my list, fer shur. Would you perchance have a link?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 28, 2011 01:21 PM (b6qrg)

Trump Loves Rahm

I was wrong. Trump didn't host a fundraiser but instead cut Rahm a $50,000 check.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 28, 2011 01:38 PM (6ftzF)

919 I ask you: Is Sarah Palin worse that some of the men who've held the position?

Or so much worse than the men in the list?

I say "no"!!!

Besides, think about this: the next elected official for this position will inherit the worse mess possible/probable. Wouldn't they love to want her to fail? She could be their scapegoat.

Posted by: elspeth at January 28, 2011 01:39 PM (0AkWH)

920 None of the Above...I want Bobby Jindal!

Posted by: g at January 28, 2011 01:41 PM (IHFo6)

921 916. "These women hate Palin, because they had already decided on Obama last time and resent her putting down education, the one accomplishment in their life they can take pride in."
Day late and a dollar short, Tats. These 'ladies' will be too busy filling out 1099's to vote.
After the dead are counted and the hanging chad certified the winner needs just 45%.
Mitt, Mitch, Newt, TPaw, Haley, ..., can all pool their electors but they won't have 50%.
Do you really think a Palin/Huckabee parlay resolves in your favor?

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 01:47 PM (/g2vP)

922 Did the Christine O'Donnell mess teach no one anything?


Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 28, 2011 12:53 PM (QxGmu)
This early in the game, Palin has an advantage with name recognition, but as she admitted when she endorsed Christine O'Donnell, that is a double-edged sword.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 01:48 PM (mHQ7T)

923 Day late and a dollar short, Tats. These 'ladies' will be too busy filling out 1099's to vote.
I would hesitate to write them off. They turn up to the polls well into their old age. Yes, I think Palin can take out Huckabee, but she has little room to grow. Best of luck to her, though!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 01:53 PM (mHQ7T)

924 Where's the flaming moderate Governor / Ambassador to China on this list? Isnt he running too?

Posted by: Sean at January 28, 2011 02:02 PM (9Gi0o)

925 Palin as the nominee would only provide comic relief as the MFM tries to link her as a former mistress to Osama Bin Laden or push the meme that she single handedly caused global warming because more people than expected watched Palin's Alaska -- ie: used dirty coal electricity to power their tv.
While the rest will folow the campaignto see if she has a "wardrobe malfunction".

Posted by: GabeS at January 28, 2011 02:03 PM (w74G6)

926 I'm not buying this poll. I mean an on line poll and Laup Nor only gets 154 votes!
Or maybe Ace just has smart readers.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 28, 2011 02:05 PM (mV+es)

927 Sarah has been doing most of the fighting so far from facebook, friggin facebook! I wanted Romney the last go around, but he has been on the bench for the last two years doing virtually nothing to challenge the administration. If we nominate another sissy boy, we will go down in flames without a battle or whimper.

Posted by: Africanus at January 28, 2011 02:07 PM (xQzdh)

928 The MSM has already decided that Romney and Huckabee are viable candidates;just like they did with McCain.
Anyone who stirs up theangst ofthe leftis on my shortlist.

Posted by: LaughingOutLoud! at January 28, 2011 02:11 PM (zNmqL)

929 curious: Wow, with all the complaints about Sarah Palin around here, how come she's at the top?

Because there are a lot of conservatives who really believe that a female candidate in somehow unserious, and want anyone other than Palin.

Even some RINO, bible thumper, or a loon like Paul.

Fortunately, the majority of conservatives aren't fooled by this crap, even if the folks offering it have fooled themselves pretty good.




Posted by: Kristopher at January 28, 2011 02:13 PM (atS82)

930 good go on.

Posted by: shaiya gold at January 28, 2011 02:14 PM (NcpaV)

931 Judge her by her enemies. Liberals hate her with a purple passion. But a bit of strategery would help. When she announces, we need to have a full fledged fight going on over banning unions in the Federal workplace, for example. Make the unions and the MSM and the MS Democrats freak out and spend their money, advertising and talking points on that.
Maybe throw in a nice big pissing contest over funding NPR, or falsified Global Warming data, complete with prosecutions of fraudsters.

Posted by: smarty at January 28, 2011 02:17 PM (cSJrw)

932 It's been interesting reading the comments. Right now I can't get past one thing, though - the hilarity of hearing Palin described as "thin skinned". Are you fucking kidding me? Anyone who can say that deserves to be ignored until the end of time, cause that's either massive troll-failure or idiocy right up there with conventional leftist thought.

Posted by: Qwinn at January 28, 2011 02:18 PM (9zHDv)

933 You fail at
understanding. The true lemmings are the so-called independents (swing
voters) with no spine or true sense of political leaning. They bend to
the will of the political winds. Yet they are the votes which must be captured in order to win a presidency. The same people that were swept up in hope 'n' change that ran from it when the tea party gave them an adult alternative are who we're talking about. And by and large, they already hate Palin. She's not going to change their minds now.

You cannot get around this fact, Palin-bots.


Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 28, 2011 01:05 PM (QxGmu)
So they bend with the wind, but have firm resolve against Palin? Sounds contradictory to me.

Posted by: Oldcat at January 28, 2011 02:18 PM (z1N6a)

934 Well to all you folk with the "She Can't win" crap, Congratulations. You have bought the lefts crap hook line and sinker.. You are probably the same ass hats that voted for McCain last go round..

200+ years ago there were poor farmers marching in the snow with rags on their bloody feet to give you a voice in government. Now you pussies don't want to stand in fight for the right person because "They Can't win".

Go ahead and elect another piss-ant squishy Rino, (if you think they can get past obumble) and enjoy. The country will still be going in the wrong direction, just slower.

We need to nominate someone with the nuts to take on the left in the battlefield of ideas and defeat them, enabling major change in the government.

I like Cain or Palin, even if they "can't win"...

Posted by: TheGarbone at January 28, 2011 02:20 PM (XjnSS)

935 Do independents hate Palin more than they fear more Obamanomics and the Obama surrender of America and the Obama police state?

Posted by: smarty at January 28, 2011 02:22 PM (cSJrw)

936 Posted by: TheGarbone at January 28, 2011 02:20 PM (XjnSS)

This!

Posted by: WishRich at January 28, 2011 02:27 PM (hdpay)

937 Ch-town Jerry? If you are from Chicago (like me!) you probably have no idea how p-o'd people were regarding the US's economic state. I didn't realize it 'til I had been to a few "red" areas in 2009 and early 2010 to realize how screwed the dem's were this past November. As one of the few conservatives in my group of friends/family I took a little (well, maybe a lot)joy in explaining how bad this was gonna befor the dems. Chicago is the epi-center of political corruption. The most corrupt city in the most corrupt county in the most corrupt state in the Union. Illinois even elected a majority R congressional delegation--I think that was a first since the civil war! States that turned blue last time are gonna flip red (Indiana, Ohio, Florida) and some are already turning red (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Mexico). It's going to be another crimson tide in 2012, and theres nothing BHO can do about it.

Posted by: thethinmanreturns at January 28, 2011 02:34 PM (W3XUk)

938 Palin. I like Cain but do not know enough about him yet, and am afraid of these guys who haven't been attacked hard enough yet. We know every thing they have on Palin and she has weathered an onslaught . One thing is for sure: a true conservative better come out of the primary, or we are definitely FUBARed.

Posted by: coppafella at January 28, 2011 02:36 PM (xn0ab)

939 Right now I can't get past one thing, though - the hilarity of hearing Palin described as "thin skinned."

Consider this. Rather than answer Couric's question humorously, as Reagan would have done, Palin chose to be defensive and sarcastic, and that's by her own admission. She was unprepared for the media onslaught that awaited her as the 2008 VP candidate, although she rose to the occasion in Dayton, OH and in her RNC speech, for example. But two years later, Palin is still defensive and sarcastic, even when greeting our troops on Thanksgiving.

Read her Facebook post "A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States," where rather than encourage and comfort our troops, who were making sacrifices for our country and unable to spend the holiday with their families, she chose to carp about media bias and why she was ridiculed for a verbal gaffe confusing North and South Korea, yet Obama got a pass for "57 states." As if it is some revelation that the media is in the tank for the Democrat!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 02:39 PM (mHQ7T)

940 It's like 2007-2008 all over again, with creepyfanatical suporters of an unelectable fringe candidate freeping online polls. The only difference is the candidate in question.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 28, 2011 02:45 PM (SY2Kh)

941 Do independents hate Palin more than they fear more Obamanomics and the Obama surrender of America and the Obama police state?
Based on the polls, it appears thatthey do.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 28, 2011 02:46 PM (SY2Kh)

942
Read her Facebook post "A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States," where rather than encourage and comfort our troops, who were making sacrifices for our country and unable to spend the holiday with their families, she chose to carp about media bias and why she was ridiculed for a verbal gaffe confusing North and South Korea, yet Obama got a pass for "57 states." As if it is some revelation that the media is in the tank for the Democrat!
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 02:39 PM (mHQ7T)
---------------
i saw the post as a joke, same with the wtf thing. The thing with Couric is she did not think the media would be such bastards she has learned and I think can beat them in 2012.
I know you're a vocal critic against Palin but lighten up a bit. She has not campaigned yet/

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 28, 2011 02:46 PM (c5RQr)

943 Why Gov Palin?

A commenter at one of Breitbart's BIG sites put it best ....

"Sarah runs directly towards gunfire...like Marines. She is the only Conservative ON POINT...She is the ONE! Democrats' hatred of her underlines their FEAR of her patriotism and her desire to reBirth America back to the Founders' Intent. We have a great leader, support her."

Also, what ElRushbo says about her, and Prof.Jacobson, and Caroline Glick (Jerusalem Post)

C'Mon America! Follow her!

Take down theLeftists and their Media allies!

YEEEEHAAAAA!

*__*

Posted by: exodus2011 at January 28, 2011 02:50 PM (PUC/x)

944 I forgot that Daniels is a governor so, knowing that, I would have voted for him rather than Palin. The rest of them are an Irwin Allen disaster movie waiting to happen:
Barbour will never overcome that racial brouhaha a few months ago.
Pawlenty - boring
Giuliani - so over
Cain - interesting idea - maybe VP for Daniels
Romney - Oh, dear God in heaven, please no. Boring and corporatist.
Thune - boring, a legislator, and only the third best looking of the bunch: Sarah beats all the men, and Mitt Romney is prettier than John Thune.
Paul - Oh, yeah, that will work.
Gingrich - so tired.
Huckabee - As far as I am concerned, thanks to Hucakbee's naivete and wishful thinking, he is ultimately responsible for the murder of four Seattle-area cops last year. Anyone who thinks it's safe to release and hope for the best a criminal who has never shown any inclination to lead a law-abiding life has no business near any position of responsibility, not even junior librarian. The Maurice Clemmons case was not the only deeply foolish decision Huckabee made - there's another that resulted in a rape and/or murder too. (With respect to Clemmons, I also blame the Pierce County courts and Washington Dept of Corrections, but they're not running for president.)

Posted by: Tonestaple at January 28, 2011 02:53 PM (Zd6DH)

945 Why Gov Palin? A commenter at one of Breitbart's BIG sites put it best .... "Sarah runs directly towards gunfire...like Marines.
Unless it's the fearsome Katie Couric and her ilk doing the shooting.
Appearing exclusively on friendly venues like Fox News or paid speaking gigs isn't brave or fearless, Palinbots. It's cowardace. It doesn't take "balls" for a staffer to put up a Facebook posting, either.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 28, 2011 02:58 PM (SY2Kh)

946 A commenter at one of Breitbart's BIG sites put it best ....

"Sarah runs directly towards gunfire...like Marines.

Yeah, that's why she chicken-shitted out of the rest of her term as Governor. Or had you forgotten that?

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 28, 2011 02:58 PM (QxGmu)

947 So they bend with the wind, but have firm resolve against Palin? Sounds contradictory to me.

You assume that Palin will be the wind. She wil not.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at January 28, 2011 02:59 PM (QxGmu)

948 I will be the wind.

Posted by: $5 a gallon gasoline at January 28, 2011 03:01 PM (GTbGH)

949 939. "Consider this."
Gallup, in their late October affiliate polling had TEAs 30%, Repugnants 27% producing 46.5% GOP votes.
Gallup also had GOP affliates, as 6 months prior, 73% convinced party leadership "unresponsive and lost".
So-con Indies distrust Palin because of her 2010 support of Mav, Fiorina, Ayeotte, et al.
Luntz had an Atlanta SOTU focus group with 7 of 13 Obots willing to vote for Il Douche again.
Meanwhile, your astro-anecdotal educated women were Joker supporters, not Hill supports. Jive, Obot conscious dreaming.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 03:09 PM (/g2vP)

950 Sarah Palin wins AOSHQ poll.
Hollowhead and Jeff B. hardest hit.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 28, 2011 03:11 PM (P33XN)

951 I find it interesting that all the naysayers believe Palin cant possibly appeal to independents to get elected. Unlike most of the naysayers and all of the left, I believe Palin is not only smart, but shrewd when it comes to retail politics. No one, I repeat, no one gets elected Governor for being otherwise. Once she starts her campaign, she will make the necessary adjustments to her message to appeal to the necessary independents. She knows whats she has to do to win and shell do it. I for one am constantly amazed by her political jujitsu.

Posted by: WishRich at January 28, 2011 03:21 PM (hdpay)

952 "The true lemmings are the so-called independents (swing voters)"
So-libs, Libertarians among them, are mostly undecided, swing voters, until they vote-with the Dimmis.
Can't wait for the crush of Obots voting in open caucusses and primaries for the 'can't win' slutty quitter who offs animals from helicopters and buckles under the verbal onslaught of "Never heard of 'em" and Cougar Colon.
Cain second with 14% and no Bolton or DeMint. Sucks to be Reince.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 03:23 PM (/g2vP)

953 Romney has socialized medicine and Mormonism that will stop him just like last time.

Palin would be a no-brainer if she hadn't quit as a governor.

Meh. Pawlenty is the only one who is either not shockingly out of the mainstream in that group. Maybe Mitch Daniels, but Pawlenty has better hair. I wish I were joking, but it matters.

Posted by: dandoz at January 28, 2011 03:30 PM (O9p3Y)

954 "Yeah, that's why she chicken-shitted out of the rest of her term as Governor. Or had you forgotten that?"

You forget that she did something for the betterment of her state to her political detriment. How many in a debate can name something they did that was not politically expedient? The silence will be deafening.

Posted by: mittens at January 28, 2011 03:35 PM (y2gov)

955 Evil Red Scandi at January 28, 2011 01:03 PM

That's about where I see Ron Paul. America's military strength is contingent upon America's economic strength. I'd like to hear his view of how best he sees fit for our Military to defend our Constitution and our nation.

It isn't as if I'd expect people to actually use their brains in the analysis when bandwagons roll by.

I think a Bolton/Paul ticket would be interesting, since it would bind the neoconservative with the libertarian Republicans. As CinC, Bolton's rejected by the bipartisan powers that be for being an "unrepentant non-reconstructed Neo-conservative"...I suppose meaning that Bolton's big on national defense but not on prolonged presence in failed nation building efforts.

VP Paul delivering deciding votes would probably be very good for the US economy. As I've complained, Paul has yet to stipulate his military policy given our current circumstances, were he potus.

Looking back for perspective, Bush/Rumsfeld's rationale for the GWB Iraq War was to establish a permanent US military base there in order to counter the Iranian theocratic nuclear power. They also promised subsequent oil contracts between Iraq/USA. I supported that rationale -- a surgical toppling of Hussein -- because I trusted that Rumsfeld/GWB were making decisions based upon real-time intelligence. Bush's ultimate plan was the US "compassionate" nation building of a US determined Islamic democracy in Iraq/Afghanistan, the US to either bribe or "win the hearts and minds of the enemy" via American PC suicide. That conversion of Iraq/Afghanistan to any "democratic" government that recognizes all religions equally will never happen. We've 10 years and perpetual war to go supporting criminally corrupt "democratic" governments everywhere. And with the Bush Wars in Islam, as things turned out, there are no reparations for the costs of delivering the democratic opportunity to Iraqis and Afghans to self govern, no treaty beneficial to the US arranged via Bush, no oil contracts, and there certainly is no permanent US military installation from which the US can launch effective self defense measures given either an Iranian, Arab, Russian or even China attack. What has happened there, resulting from the Bush wars in Islam, is the destabilization of balanced sectarian powers that hugely enhance Iran's theocracy and its Jihad, while performing genocide of the region's indigenous minorities.

More of the same, whether after Bush or Obama, will not improve anyone's sense of Liberty.

More of the same will hasten hitting rock bottom that some here have longed for, claiming that we "deserve" what ruin we're experiencing and the worst to come. Personally, I don't "deserve" the US economic ruin or terrorism whether from authoritarians, jihadi terrorists, drug cartels or any other brand of criminals. I'm not taking or getting "my fair share" from any government subsidy. I certainly never fraud in order to laugh all the way to the bank. When I hear Libertarian Neil Boortz, I don't hear isolationism. And when I read Libertarian Mises.org or The Daily Bell, I don't read isolationism though there is plenty of criticism of the current political policies. I certainly don't hear isolationism from Michael Savage, an independent with Libertarian sentiments.

I just don't think that the Libertarian-Republican is defined properly by focusing all attention on the juvenile Americans with cultural and institutionalized drug habits who inappropriately wear the Libertarian label for a false sense of responsible respectability.

If the "Big Tent" is supposed to be important to keep and promote politically for electoral success, then admit that fringe are an intrinsic element no matter the size of the tent.

I have consistently promoted PLATFORM PRIOR TO CANDIDATE. The successful party will have a platform upon which every candidate promotes that agenda.

COMMON GROUND promotes what we do believe in together. Strong economy and security, small federal government with limited powers, and constitutional rule of law are what I vote for every election, regardless of political affiliation.


Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 03:38 PM (H+LJc)

956 953. TPaw has the marriage for the campaign, wife's was a judge and comely.
Daniels, not as much.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 03:39 PM (/g2vP)

957 i saw the post as a joke, same with the wtf thing.

Thing with being POTUS is there is a certain bit of gravitas required for the job, especially in regards to the CINC part, so while Palin's patriotism goes without saying, her address to the troops in that instance was beneath the dignity of the office in which she aspires to.
Meanwhile, your astro-anecdotal educated women were Joker supporters, not Hill supports. Jive, Obot conscious dreaming.

I already conceded that these women trend Democratic and were on board with Obama, not Hillary. They are still swing voters for the right candidate.


Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 03:41 PM (mHQ7T)

958 shrewd when it comes to retail
politics. No one, I repeat, no one gets elected Governor for being
otherwise. Once she starts her campaign, she will make the necessary
adjustments to her message to appeal to the necessary independents. She
knows whats she has to do to win and shell do it.

Certainly reminiscent of "promise anything for the vote" before pulling up stakes in hopes of coming back '12 a la Mitt.


Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2011 03:42 PM (H+LJc)

959 I think the "cabal" promised McCain he could be el Presidente next time around.

Posted by: Dianne at January 28, 2011 03:49 PM (RPC8g)

960 ... or "to which she aspires." Sorry, phone was ringing.

Bush won these women by 7% in 2000 and by 18% in 2004 because he was stronger on national security and Republicans had successfully weakened Clinton and the Democratic party by proxy. They responded by making the issue about the war in 2006 and the economic collapse in 2008. "Bush lied, people died." Of the Democratic coalition, women are the easiest to persuade, because they get few perks. What kind of prize is abortion?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 28, 2011 03:49 PM (mHQ7T)

961 Wash. Post's electoral 'math' is sillyness. Florida could go Dimmi if GOP were to take on SS, like that will happen. OH, WI gone. PA, VAin some trouble.
There will be no economic cavalry. That the GOP will not cover themselves in glory will not help. 42% is the best he can hope for against 3 or 4 national contenders he needs a RINO GOP foil very badly.
It's his <b>only,/b> path to re-election.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 03:49 PM (/g2vP)

962 Why isn't Mitt mentioned more when it comes to electability? Gallup says 17% would not vote for a Mormon. More then twice as many that say they wouldn't vote for an African American.

The Huckster getting less then half the votes of the guy in next to last place. People here know the issues and candidates. The only reason he does well in national polls is name recognition.

I have not made my mind up about anyone other then Mitt Romney being a no go. My choices are Palin-Thune-Pawlenty. If only they had 6 cojones between them instead of 3 1/2. Thune has a spectacular conservative voting record, but he hangs out with all the liberal republicans, so he never fights the fight. Its his major flaw.

Posted by: Keven at January 28, 2011 03:51 PM (is/Ek)

963 " beneath the dignity of the office in which she aspires to."
Like flipping off debate adversaries, curtseys to foreign heads of state, calling for supporters to bring a gun, calling adversaries terrorists,...
Forget the left, the only way to lose is to fail to please the right. Obots have no other hope than to scare pantywaists.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 03:56 PM (/g2vP)

964
Palin here.

Why: Her basket of experience as a PTA mom, city council member, mayor, blue collar worker, energy regulator, Governor, etc. means she understands what makes this country work. I believe she would bring a lot of fresh yet practical ideas to DC.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 28, 2011 03:59 PM (bAySe)

965 Well to all you folk with the "She Can't win" crap, Congratulations. You have bought the lefts crap hook line and sinker.. You are probably the same ass hats that voted for McCain last go round.. 200+ years ago there were poor farmers marching in the snow with rags on their bloody feet to give you a voice in government. Now you pussies don't want to stand in fight for the right person because "They Can't win". Go ahead and elect another piss-ant squishy Rino, (if you think they can get past obumble) and enjoy. The country will still be going in the wrong direction, just slower. We need to nominate someone with the nuts to take on the left in the battlefield of ideas and defeat them, enabling major change in the government. I like Cain or Palin, even if they "can't win"...
Whole heartedly agree!

Posted by: havedash at January 28, 2011 04:15 PM (sFD5n)

966 958 shrewd when it comes to retail politics. No one, I repeat, no one gets elected Governor for being otherwise. Once she starts her campaign, she will make the necessary adjustments to her message to appeal to the necessary independents. She knows whats she has to do to win and shell do it. Certainly reminiscent of "promise anything for the vote" before pulling up stakes in hopes of coming back '12 a la Mitt.
Actually, no. I was thinking more along the lines of tone and presidential temperament.

Posted by: WishRich at January 28, 2011 04:16 PM (hdpay)

967 14% of you chose Herman Cain, who I hadn't even heard of until a few weeks ago.

And 42% of you chose the most hated woman in politics.

We are doomed.

Posted by: RJ at January 28, 2011 04:28 PM (qDPnZ)

968 I've found my candidate and I'm sticking with her. Palin all the way. She's the only one with the guts to do what needs to be done. And like Christie, she'dtell you she's not there for a popularity contest or to get re-elected.
I was with a bunch of arch conservatives today and one made led off with the old chestnut, "I like Palin, but I want her to keep doing what she's doing."
To which I bit my tongue and refrained from saying, "Yeah, let's just use her till we've used her up and then toss her away." Grrrrrr.
havedash @965 -- you rock.

Posted by: RushBabe at January 28, 2011 04:30 PM (urYpw)

969 That there is one hell of a lead for Sarahcuda. My opinion, with her knack for speaking her mind and sticking to her core principles no matter the cost she is the only of who can give O the pucker factor needed in the 2012 contest.... AND she'll beat him soundly because of it.

Posted by: loiseller at January 28, 2011 04:32 PM (2b46R)

970 I don't think Sarah Palin can win. I really don't. There are a lot of things that I like about Palin, but there are things that bother me too. Sometimes I think she is cashing in..But then again, I do agree with a lot of what she says.

But Independents do not like her and I don't see that changing and if she gets the nomination it will take a miracle for her to win..Miracles do happen of course, but I am not into throwing away the election and giving Obama a second term if it can be avoided.

I live in Indiana and I like Mitch Daniels. We are not in debt, the state government runs smoothly and Daniels was out there balancing the budget and cutting spending long before there was a Tea Party. I realize that people think he is too wonkish and not charismatic enough, but then again he also not a lightning rod and here in Indiana he has done really well with both conservatives and Independents.

Posted by: Terrye at January 28, 2011 04:34 PM (tYKoa)

971 Everyone, and I mean everyone know that Sarah left the Governorship because she was having her ass sued off by liberal attack dogs, and then they sued to prevent her from raising money to defend herself.
So when you hear or read someone saying Sarah quit on Alaska or ran away from a fight, you are dealing with a low down lying POS, a totally dishonest opponent in any debate.
Hint: Debates require good faith.

Posted by: smarty at January 28, 2011 04:34 PM (cSJrw)

972 966:

"No one, I repeat, no one gets elected Governor for being otherwise."

Rick Scott is disliked and/or distrusted by most of the people in Florida, including a good number of folks who voted for him. He won because his opponent in the general election was a debate cheater and a Democrat in a very GOP year, and also because he spent about 100 zillion dollars in the election campaign.

Another example: Jon Corzine of NJ.

Posted by: RJ at January 28, 2011 04:35 PM (qDPnZ)

973 Who wants a pres riding around in a pick-up truck with a 12 guage on the back window?
sorry. I got a tingling in my leg right now

Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at January 28, 2011 04:37 PM (nRF6+)

974 Outside of Palin, who can remember a single thing any of the rest of the hopefuls have said?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2011 08:51 AM (xmuv/)

But that is not always a good thing. Palin's negatives are high in large part because people do remember a lot of the things she has said and don't like her. I don't think that will change. It is easier to take a new candidate with low disapproval numbers and raise their approvals than it is to take someone really well known like Palin and make people change that opinion. I do think the press has been way too hard on Palin, but I don't see that changing She will always either be seen as a villain or a victim and that will make it hard to win an election.

Posted by: Terrye at January 28, 2011 04:39 PM (tYKoa)

975 967. "We are doomed."
Look on the bright side, if so-cons read this blog Huckabee would have come in second.
Moreover, Ron Paul's mummy will do better in 2012. Unless you run someone right of center.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 04:41 PM (/g2vP)

976 So when you hear or read someone saying Sarah
quit on Alaska or ran away from a fight, you are dealing with a low down
lying POS, a totally dishonest opponent in any debate.
Hint: Debates require good faith.

Posted by: smarty at January 28, 2011 04:34 PM (cSJrw)
People do not care why she quit...they just know she quit. That is all most of them need to know. If you tell them she was forced into it because she could not afford to defend herself..then they will want to know what it will take to force her to bow out of the Presidency...what threat or stress or set of circumstances will be too much for her. I think Palin probably made the best decision for her family when she left that office and I understand why she did what she did, but most people will still think of it as quitting.

Posted by: Terrye at January 28, 2011 04:47 PM (tYKoa)

977 According to the Reichstag Media Palin cant win. Why? Because Obama is like Ronald Reagan now. He is much better than Palin now. (they mistake the big "O" for Obama as the "Big O" as is in "Orgasm"

Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at January 28, 2011 04:48 PM (nRF6+)

978 So when you hear or read someone saying Sarah quit on Alaska or ran away
from a fight, you are dealing with a low down lying POS, a totally
dishonest opponent in any debate.

I understand why Gov. Palin resigned. I think it was the right decision for her family and for her personally. However, it is still a sign that she was unable to complete what she started. She began reforming Alaska, but was not able to finish what she started. That is a negative in my book. It suggests she is not able to work within a system, master it, and bend it to her will. It suggests she can not work effectively when she has a population of constituents (and staff and colleagues) whose interests and priorities are more diverse than you'd find in a small town.

I think she is a person with admirable character who is nevertheless not as skilled an executive as people are crediting her with being. She can inspire individuals, but she apparently is not an inspirational executive. Had she been the latter, people in her administration and in government across the state of Alaska would have come to her defense and the lawsuits would have gone nowhere.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 04:49 PM (pW2o8)

979 I keep seeing Donald Trump pop up, maybe people need to understand rich conservative. The guy was on Savage talking big on trade dealings, but you know what his fix was? Raise taxes on foreign companies, not lower ours. Just make foreign products less affordable for our people because our business environment is poor. Never mentioned lower spending, never said the word liberty. Just was pissed that there was a trade imbalance.

Savage loved it of course, but he's about as economically conservative as Lou Dobbs.

Whoever said it earlier was right, "He'll take your guns and liberty."

Posted by: Morgan at January 28, 2011 04:58 PM (raRpC)

980 Had she been the latter, people in her administration and in government across the state of Alaska would have come to her defense and the lawsuits would have gone nowhere.
This is ridiculous.
1) The lawsuits DID go nowhere. They were completely frivolous, and every one to my knowledge was dismissed eventually, but it still required tons of her time and legal fees.
2) They also sued to keep her from raising money to pay those legal fees. So how and what exactly were "people in her administration and in government" supposed to do to help her? Note, of course, that if they COULD have done anything, the left would have used that to demonize her still further, claiming that that was proof positive that she was guilty and using her power to cover it up.

Posted by: Qwinn at January 28, 2011 04:59 PM (9zHDv)

981 970. I would agree with Terrye that Daniels is the only great WM hopeleftworth placinga mirror under his nose.
Bayh and Lugar are also popular in Northern IN, no crucible of fire for a private man and his family.
With a fat job in DC locked up will he run? Can he fire the passion of the base?

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 04:59 PM (/g2vP)

982 976. "People do not care why she quit...they just know she quit. That is all most of them need to know."
There you go again. How about Mr. Castle, the shoo in, electable and experienced?
Maybe I was precipitous, anyone Terrye backs has to be a loser.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 28, 2011 05:07 PM (/g2vP)

983 Yikes,
its 5pm I started reading this part time @7am.
And no one answered the ? for me re. Cain. Did he fix Godfathers pizza? I tried it ~20 years ago and it sucked.

Posted by: Dave at January 28, 2011 05:19 PM (dxXO1)

984 Sarah's got my vote. She is the only one I trust in the back room deal making. Her first question would be "Is it good for America?" Enough said.

Posted by: laurairish at January 28, 2011 05:26 PM (DoNVU)

985 Just wait until Palin announces that she is running. The money bomb will be of nuclear proportions.

Posted by: laurairish at January 28, 2011 05:29 PM (DoNVU)

986 Wow. Are we really gonna pass 1,000?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 28, 2011 05:47 PM (XVaFd)

987 Because I believe she is honest...
and what I believe is who I am.
DF1

Posted by: DFrosty1 at January 28, 2011 06:26 PM (38KxK)

988 I don't think she's going to run, either, but she REALLY needs to shit or get off the pot.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 28, 2011 10:25 AM (NjYDy)
//
And why is that? I don't see anyone demanding that any of the other prospective candidates declare immediately. Why is it different with Palin?Oh...that's right. The rules are ALWAYS different for Palin.Btw... for the wussies in here who are scared because the media doesn't like Palin... here's a news flash.They won't like ANY candidate who seems like a threat to them... who will actually fight them.
The only acceptable GOP candidate to them is the one who comes across as the most unassuming, wimpy bit of principle-less nothing with no ability to draw crowds or donations. Who stand for little to nothing.Who will give a great concession speech in 2012.That's their idea of acceptable.Any candidate we put forward against his ONENESS will be given the Palin treatment, once they win the nomination.Wouldn't it make sense that we have someone who fights back? Someone who can withstand the torrent?For God's sake... she was accused of abetting MASS MURDER. And yet here she still stands and she's still on the offensive.My ticket choice for 2012 is Palin/West.

Posted by: Mary Beth at January 28, 2011 06:32 PM (uGE+P)

989 986 Wow. Are we really gonna pass 1,000?
This is what I think a lot of bloggers don't get yet. The Palin Grizzlies are paying attention. What other candidate generates this kind of passion to get your comment #'s up? Start paying attention. This matters.

Posted by: laurairish at January 28, 2011 06:35 PM (DoNVU)

990 I can't believe that there are so many fanatic people, so willing to hand the election over to Obama. For the sake of honesty, I don't think there is any way to knock the Joker off his throne unless the economy tanks. Why the hell not put Palin up against the Joker because it is likely not to matter. If the economy is tanking then people will be begging for Christie, Cain, or Daniels because they understand money. Christie and Daniels understand how to cut government, so they are better headliners.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at January 28, 2011 06:35 PM (VW9Wz)

991 Well I see the Palin whackjobs have been busy. Do these people even work?

Posted by: lowandslow, Packer fan at January 28, 2011 06:51 PM (GZitp)

992 If we run another Dole or McCain I'm done supporting these losers.

Posted by: joh at January 28, 2011 06:52 PM (JEvSn)

993 Can't abide by another Dole or McCain either, so we need to pick a grown up that knows how to govern and has the right core values. That is why I am all for Daniels/Cain.

Posted by: Sandy Salt at January 28, 2011 06:57 PM (VW9Wz)

994 Hey Hollowpoint @#945
Be patient, if Gov Palin enters the POTUS race I reckon you will see her interviewed by Tapper et al, but the conditions are likely to be 'live' interviews only, or else she will have her own copy of the full interview as backup.I'm sure you are aware of the power ofthe 'Editor' and almost any outcome can be achieved with enough 'editing' when there is an agenda moulding the outcome ..... I would doubt if The Perky One will have the privilege of interviewing Gov Palin again though ... she might not be holding down her CBS anchorjob much longer anyhow.
What makes you think a staffer posts for her on Gov Palin's FB page? Is that just wishful/hopeful thinking on your part? You probably haven't followed her closely enough to recognise 'her voice' in the writing that appears on FB.

Posted by: exodus2011 at January 28, 2011 07:08 PM (PUC/x)

995
ps - Surprised Rick Santorum is not on this poll, nor is he mentioned in 1,000 comments. Not my choice, but he its been clear of a while that he's thiking about a run.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 28, 2011 07:08 PM (bAySe)

996 I read this entire thread, and what I have noticed is that the reasons for not wanting Palin are just someone's own personal bias.
JeffB said she endorsed Ryan's Roadmap but hadn't shown she understood it or knew anything about it. When he was given a link to her WSJ article about ithe decided that she still didn't know anything about it, because she didn't write it and it was written by Randy Whateverthefuckhisname is. He does not know that, but he believes it so it must be true. FAIL.
Others say it's because she's polarizing. Why is that? Because the media tells you that? The media tells you lots of shit that is BS, but so many here fall for their stupid shit time and again. Most of you put forth your reason for thinking she can't win based on what the MFM has told you, or because the media will go batshit insane trying to take her down if she runs, and Lord knows you can't fight that. I mean they've been so nice to her over the last 2 years, and she's so thin-skinned. God help us she's just so damn dumb.
Others don't like her voice. Yeah, that's a great reason for thinking someone would not make a good president. Many don't think she has the intellect to be a good president. You don't know that, but you believe it because well, just because. Most of you haven't bothered to even read her op-eds, or listened to any of her speeches, but it must be true. Besides she couldn't possibly have written any of them. All the other potential candidates from time immemorial have. So there.
Some of you pick candidates that have even less experience at governing, or have none, or during the last 2 years have done not a damn thing to fight the conservative fight or bring to the public's attention the idiocy of the current regime, but boy they sound good, and nobody's ever heard of them but they can prove they'll be agood president once the campaigning starts. Because, well, just because.
What I'm going to say now is going to piss some of you off and I don't care. Many of you are ignorant of Palin's intellect, and haven't bothered to dig deeper than what you think you know. Many of you are just using the MFM, and lefty talking points for your own agenda. Some of you are cowards willing to allow the media to dictate what you should think and who you should support. Many of you are willing to support someone you know little about because well, golly, they sound good on the few things I know about, and um they're taller or as tall as Obama, they have good hair, they talk a good game even if they're saying no more or even less than Palin, but damn it sure sounds pretty.
You can't bully or belittle people into dropping their support for Palin, so you malign anddenigrate her and her supporters thinking that will get you somewhere. It may, but it won't get you what you want. What it is getting you is more steadfast support for her. People are digging in their heels, because they've done their homework, and know where she stands on issues. They know she is not stupid. They know her core beliefs and her vision for the country, and she has never once wavered on any of it. You can't say that about any other potential candidate.
So, have at your little false narrative of her. For most of the last 2 years I have watched , listened learned. What I have learned is that most of that narrative is just crap. This time I vote my principals, and will not be bullied or coerced into voting for someone that the media or the establishment picks.
This time I fight.

Posted by: Steph at January 28, 2011 07:11 PM (AkdC5)

997 Oh, and JeffB...Randy Scheuneman would be a foreign policy adviser, not an economics wonk, so you just prove, again, that you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to Palin.

Posted by: Steph at January 28, 2011 07:31 PM (AkdC5)

998 Posted by: Qwinn at January 28, 2011 04:59 PM

We disagree about what a loyal base of political operatives in her administration and in Alaska might have been able to do. That's fine. It's a hypothetical anyway.

My recollection is that there was no popular outcry of concern from Alaska, either inside or outside of the halls of power, when Palin was being attacked. Given how well she had been polling in AK when she was tapped for VP, I was surprised that other elected officials weren't out in the media every day defending her and saying how outraged they were at the charges. It struck me then, and still does, as very odd.

At the end of the day, none of my perceptions about the politics on the ground -- right or wrong (or yours, for that matter) -- change the fact that she gets an "Incomplete" for her grade as governor of Alaska.

I won't criticize her for putting her family ahead of her job, but it still shows that she was not able or willing to tough out her term. Many politicians would have toughed it out (see Sanford, Mark). Personally, I think that speaks to her lack of experience governing a diverse population and does not bode well for how she would manage a Cabinet, advisors, and Congressional allies (and foes).

But in any event it means that I will never be able to assess what her skills were as governor. She started things that she was not able to finish.

Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2011 07:36 PM (pW2o8)

999 996 great post

Ace and friends I think it might be time you escape the NE bubble mindset and start you know blogging about Palin as something besides a tabloid figure. Her support is wide and it is deep.

oh and bonus. Palin could not get one vote form the NE and still win the POTUS. So for those in the NE that hate THAT WOMAN screw off we do not need you.

Posted by: unseen at January 28, 2011 07:42 PM (aVGmX)

1000 oh and 1,000

Posted by: unseen at January 28, 2011 07:42 PM (aVGmX)

1001 It was about more than just "toughing out her term."

Leaving also freed her up to fire with both barrels at the left...and campaign in the lower 48 and be a valuable asset for the conservative movement in ways that would have been impossible were she chained to her title and the baggage of endless frivolous lawsuits and a staff mired in dealing with little else.

She saved her family... helped her state... ensured her agenda would have a voice the left wouldn't care about (ie...Parnell)... and took it to Obama with guns blazing rather than allowed them to trap her like a fish in a barrel.

She did an end run around their strategy to weaken and destroy her. And they hate her all the more for her having the utter nerve not to give up and go away.

Posted by: Mary Beth at January 28, 2011 07:44 PM (uGE+P)

1002 Hey Rod @#946
(btw, are you a Lifeguard?)
Sarah Palin was Alaskas Oil and Gas Commissioner; she resigned, reloaded, re-engaged, and gunned down corruption all the way up the ladder to become the Governor.
Her resignation did not prevent her from seeking higher office.

Posted by: exodus2011 at January 28, 2011 07:59 PM (PUC/x)

1003 Holy crap, work all day and come home to 1000+?
Liz Cheney. Now that is Presidential material. Unlike any body on the poll list above.

Posted by: Supreme Court at January 28, 2011 08:18 PM (L+dBi)

1004 Hey Steph @#996
Reckon there are gonna be millions of Americans like you ...
As Prof.W. Jacobson asked recently:
Is it time for a knock-down, drag-out fight between Conservative America and the Leftists/Media Cabal?

Posted by: exodus2011 at January 28, 2011 08:19 PM (PUC/x)

1005 Palin all the way. Because, when Sarah announces The Full Palin Plan for Energy Independence, "before the decade is out", so many enviro-wackos, nay-sayers, and pooh-poohers, are not going to "have a cow", they are going to "have entire HERDS of cows,SIMULTANEOUSLY. I believe in,"GO BIG OR STAY HOME."

Posted by: bigmike at January 28, 2011 08:21 PM (yExWk)

1006 I will see how things play out in the primary, but unless Palin bombs on the campaign trail then she has my vote. I want a fighter to go against Obama and the lib media. The last thing we need isanother effete 'go along to get along' type as the nominee. We already have enough of these type of "conservatives"serving in Congress, working as media pundits, and blogging on the internet.This is not the time for the weak to lead. Unless we are prepared to fight then the left will chew us up and spit us out. So far, Palin is the only fighter I see.

Posted by: Chief at January 28, 2011 08:26 PM (ACsq3)

1007 Sarah Palin's the only one with the mettle necessary to fight.

Posted by: chaz at January 28, 2011 08:31 PM (oJGIR)

1008 Palin Power! She's got enough support. She just needs to announce soon. Game over.

Posted by: bjwilson83 at January 28, 2011 08:50 PM (2fpLV)

1009 Palin is the one with kahonaes to go head to head with the psycho lefties guarding the wimpwristed obambi.........she is the only person to bring out the true ugly nature of the leftie dems- ruining this country-----and America will be reminded again why the left/dems should never be leading any forms of government in this country.....

Palin/Cain 2012
Imagine Palin hosting a state dinner ....omg
I can't wait....

Posted by: nygal at January 28, 2011 08:52 PM (YGfXJ)

1010 Sarah Palin! She's got GRIT! I love GRIT! The only other one on the list I could vote for is Herman Cain. If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate one of those other "inside-the-beltway" Nancy boys, they can go to hell.

Posted by: Kev at January 28, 2011 09:00 PM (p0DJS)

1011 Sarah Palin!

Hold onto Obama by the nose, and kick him in the balls!

Posted by: Downfall Hitler's Last Parody at January 28, 2011 09:07 PM (H6lGz)

1012 Cool, we finally got Palin over 44%. Where's Huck's Army, isn't he supposed to have an army?

Posted by: bigmike at January 28, 2011 09:13 PM (yExWk)

1013 1014, 1015,... (just messing with you). Heck yes Steph! Time for Palin
supporters to rise up and stop taking this BS from the candidates who
didn't have the guts to take on Obama or the courage to defend Sarah
Palin over the last tow years.

Posted by: bjwilson83 at January 28, 2011 09:22 PM (2fpLV)

1014 My take on Gov Palin's incredible dominance in this straw poll .....
Her army has grown recently, numbers on FB have really jumped in the last few days....
The growth is coming from TPM fence -sitters who realise they need to get involved and fight with the ONLYwarrior in the bunch .... Ron Paul's online army appears to have disbanded, Huck's supporters realise he almost certainly won't run - a bunch of these folks may have decided to support The Warrior too ...
Mittcare, T-Paw and Newt are really struggling to garner any enthusiasm.
The ABP (anyone but Palin) crowdis now split between Daniels, Cain and Thune ..... with somewhat pitiful results really ....
Everyone is waiting to see what The Elephant In The Room is gonna do, (while desperately trying not to mention her!) .... or should I say The Barracuda In The Room *__*
I don't reckon there will be any announcement from The Arctic Fox until after The Iron Dog Race at the end of Feb, at the earliest .... so the ABP folks'll just have to keep gnawing on their fists for a few weeks longer *__*
MeanwhileGov Palinis gonna command incredible attention nationwide when she headlines the Reagan 100 Celebration at the RWR Ranch Center in Santa Barbara next month .... sigh, those poor PDS sufferers, some of whom are trying to boycott coverage of Gov Palin throughout Feb ...... HA!
They had best go book weekly appoitments with their Shrinks throughout Feb I reckon
*__*



Posted by: exodus2011 at January 28, 2011 09:47 PM (PUC/x)

1015 Huck's army? You need to remember that Huck's army isn't on the blogs, they are there and he will win the nomination if Palin stays out of it. Most of them will defect to Palin if she wants in. What surprises me about this poll is where are the Romney Bots, they normally roll through the online polls.

Posted by: doug at January 28, 2011 10:19 PM (gUGI6)

1016 Jeb Bush - assuming that we can elect more conservatives.

Posted by: Wireless one at January 28, 2011 10:27 PM (Dxb1S)

1017 Huckabee is not running, from what I gather. Internal statements and movements in the Huckabee camp are showing him leaving the scene since he's making more money as a Fox News host.

Pence is out, of course.

Since Pence's majority was the fiscal/social con mix, it's natural that most of them would gravitate towards Palin. And since Huckabee is Mr. Social Conservative Himself, they would likely gravitate towards Palin as well.

Also, things of note: Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle are not running for president, no matter what Politico says. Bachmann went to Iowa to clear the field. Angle went there to see a movie. Simple stuff.

Also, the ROI on SarahPAC is too good to pass up. All the rest have lost their luster. If you're going to make an investment, you want an awesome return. Sarah and her PAC does that.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 28, 2011 10:28 PM (3ZwGF)

1018 And I'm going to say this once: If we elect another Bush, I am going to find the nearest conservative and beat him until he's dead.

NO MORE BUSHES!

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 28, 2011 10:29 PM (3ZwGF)

1019 MY MESSAGE ABOUT SARAH WAS REJECTED BECAUSE YOU'RE A COLLECTION OF A-HOLES!! GO F......URSELVES!!

Posted by: markrite at January 28, 2011 11:36 PM (DqQHC)

1020 Uh...okay, markrite. We can't help you here. But ask your doctor if he has any valium or...you know...lithium.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Mary Beth at January 28, 2011 11:41 PM (uGE+P)

1021 Palin Power is looming large. Can you feel it.

She will generate some serious passion and the $$$$ will flow like water into her coffers.

Watch Out World
Yes She Can 2012

Posted by: Tycho at January 29, 2011 12:13 AM (p6fOG)

1022 Unfuckingbelievable. These fucking Palin assholes actually are part of the so called conservatives. God help us.

Posted by: lowandslow, Packer fan at January 29, 2011 12:22 AM (GZitp)

1023 Palin has been our most effective soldier in the battle with the libtards, to not promote her to general because she has been the most bloodied during the fight is beyond foolish.
To all of the women who claim they won't support her- fuck off. You caddy bithces are the reason girls/women have alwwyas struggled to get ahead in the workplace/politics. You all can't stand to see other powerful women succeed! The movie "Mean Girls" was the most accurate movie i have ever seen of how girls treat eachother. Palin is completely self-made, unlike peoisi, clinton, huffington (who all needed a man to get ahead), wake up and realize that she is ronald reagan in a skirt.

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2011 12:23 AM (XKPTv)

1024 Yes She Can 2012
Posted by: Tycho at January 29, 2011 12:13 AM (p6fOG)
Why don't you just use "Yes We Can?" You can get plenty of the T-shirts at a discount nowdays, and the cult of personality is the same.

Posted by: Vashta.Nerada at January 29, 2011 12:28 AM (9Uxl0)

1025 Palin out debated a 35 year sitting senator for 90 minutes when she was just a2 year governor (and that was with the worthless mccain people prepping her). I predict she will have the chicgo machine marxist stuttering his now infamous "uuuuhhh"s in the first 5 minutes of a presidential debate, and this time it will be in front of 100 million people.
Let's see if i got the left's play book correct...Call Reagan dumb , which gave us 8 years of a Reagan presidency.
Call Bush dumb, which gave us 8 years of a Busgh presidency.
Call Palin dumb--8 years perhaps?? I'm hopin

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2011 12:40 AM (XKPTv)

1026 Hey "lowandslow"...

Watch your tone, sweetness... or I might come to the conclusion that you don't take your god's call to "civility" all that seriously.

And Vashta.Nerada ...

Liking Palin does not make one "cultish"... neither is mocking the other party's motto.




Posted by: Mary Beth at January 29, 2011 12:54 AM (uGE+P)

1027 If Huckabee is running why is he waiting for the latter part of summer to run, given the Ames Straw poll in Iowa is in August?

And if the story on Romney and his political inadequacies as reported by Politico are not correct why did Politico print the story? They knew this story would hurt Mitt and help Palin. They definitely would never want to do that.

So occasionally Politico does print the truth although sometimes the truth does hurt.

Posted by: bob at January 29, 2011 01:00 AM (I96zw)

1028 Hey Bob, they're media, not rocket scientists, ocassionally they'll pull the trigger accidentally like, they're not completely organized. I'm sure a school of piranah will sometimes eat one of their own and not even notice. I'd say that it's happenstance. In other words...OOPS.

Posted by: bigmike at January 29, 2011 01:31 AM (yExWk)

1029 T-Paw or Daniels; they have fine records as governor of their states. Don't know about Daniels but T-Paw can speak well on spending. Both need to get out there, become known and attract followers. T-Paw's working hard at it but haven't heard anything about Daniels reaching out.

I admire Palin but we need to have someone who we can present to the middle as a creditable candidate. Palin will be rejected out of hand by too many to win. If Palin could win the Alaska senate seat in 2014, or take a cabinet post for a Republican president in 2012, she might burnish her reputation, make people forget she quit her last job, and be a creditable presidential candidate one day; she's still young.

I don't believe Cain has any political experience. Thune is nobody, has never led a charge to make any principled stand. Please no Huckabee, don't know that he has any principles other than advancing himself. Romney may be acceptable but I don't have enthusiasm for his candidacy. I don't think Barbour with his southern personality would get the votes to win. Giuliani isn't what's the country needs. Ron Paul is too nutty (though Rand is awesome).

I think the Republican field is better than 2008 when it was awful, but there isn't a clear candidate to get behind.

Posted by: waelse1 at January 29, 2011 01:58 AM (9ZKnX)

1030 "The Arctic Fox" Love it! I'm going to start referring to Palin this way. And Obama has become "the man who once engaged in a land transaction with convicted felon Tony Rezko".

Posted by: Brian Wilson at January 29, 2011 02:38 AM (N8F1v)

1031 it is awesome how palin has almost half the votes in a poll with 11 people in it. =)

Posted by: Super Sachiko at January 29, 2011 03:31 AM (OBcey)

1032 People, do not even THINK about Chris Christie! I love his smackdowns of the unions -- but the man is knee-deep in connections with radical Islamists.

NOT GOOD!
http://tinyurl.com/66p277r


Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at January 29, 2011 05:12 AM (yJlU8)

1033 Nobody on that list of candidates except Newt gets it about the existential threat to us -- to all of Western civilization -- from Islam and sharia.
http://tinyurl.com/29alppe

The only politician currently in office who DOES get it is Allen West.
http://tinyurl.com/4jt7ogd

Palin/West sounds good to me.

Of course, if there is another 9/11-scale attack between now and the election, people will be begging Allen West to be Commander-in-Chief. He is the Winston Churchill of our generation.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at January 29, 2011 05:19 AM (yJlU8)

1034 Thune is nobody, has never led a charge to make any principled stand.

Heading a movement is not necessarily a qualification most voters are looking for in a candidate, otherwise there would be more community organizers in the GOP. Thune's voting record is perfectly acceptable. His power in the Senate has
grown immensely due to the Republican wipeouts of 2006 and 2008; he was
elected after the Iraq War was authorized, sparing him ties to the Bush
Administration; he has remained a non-instigating and civil figure in Washingtonduring
a time of unprecedented incivility and anger. In short, his nose is clean but he's in the fight.
And by entering this race as the reasoned, practical, but still
hard-lined deficit-hawk family-values Tea-Party-friendly Christian
conservative candidate, Thune is poised to capture this nomination. Presidential candidates have to represent some aspect of their current
political reality and Thune's time is now.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 29, 2011 10:52 AM (mHQ7T)

1035 Dude, gotta be a lotta depressed ABPer's this morning! Sarah's at 45% in an AOSHQ poll. WTF indeed!

Posted by: stevea28 at January 29, 2011 11:12 AM (0Hq08)

1036 Sarah - She is the only candidate that runs toward the fire every single time. She also never leaves a soldier behind.

Everyone else retreats, hides in a bunker or crosses enemy lines to join enemy forces.

That is leadership. You have to be able to trust your Commander. I trust Sarah.

Posted by: Firelight at January 29, 2011 12:31 PM (GVj/u)

1037 "Thune is poised to capture this nomination."
If anyone outside the GOP party faithul knew he live and breathed.
I find these remonstrations of Tats against the consensus manufactured as if from whole cloth. Case in point the notion that educated business women are swing voters firmly ensconced in the Hope and Change camp prior to Palin's accession.
While I've served as girlfriend to none, I am related to a number and have some contact with this demographic group at large. Few are swing voters, most Dimmis, and many consoled themselves voting with the party having bitterly opposed Hill's usurpation.
Thune is a legislator, a party apparatchik, a life-long political operative at the Federal and State levels. That said he is not a lawyer.
The train is departing the station, no one not already in full sprint will catch a ride.

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 29, 2011 02:06 PM (/g2vP)

1038 Sarah Palin for sure and Bolton as her VP.
Since Reagan,we've tried the white dudes then a black dude now it's time to bring on a very capable woman who's maininterest involves the great ol' US of A.
"ikwill happens to be an independent and a woman"

Posted by: Ikwill at January 29, 2011 03:42 PM (zglKQ)

1039 Sarah Palin is The Only True, Real and Strong LEADER....She is a FIGHTER....

Posted by: Carl at January 29, 2011 05:24 PM (7OTbn)

1040 Oh come on, vote for Herm Cain, you bunch of racists!

Posted by: Mark V. at January 29, 2011 07:01 PM (L5uha)

1041 the arctic fox is the ONLY one that can (and will) win
palin 2012

Posted by: jeff at January 29, 2011 08:36 PM (3OM0W)

1042 "I guess if you want a war with the MFM with the Presidency at stake, Palin would be the way to go..


Posted by: Dave C at January 28, 2011 08:42 AM (fYmYB)"
Just because you haven't declared war on them, doesn't mean they aren't already at war with you.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at January 29, 2011 08:36 PM (Q1qy3)

1043 If anyone outside the GOP party faithul knew he live and breathed.

Funny, I've read speculations on whether he'll run or no recently on Politico, The Huffington Post and Time Magazine recently. Plus, he was included in this poll, which is why I'm mentioning him.
Few are swing voters, most Dimmis, and many consoled themselves voting with the party having bitterly opposed Hill's usurpation.

Mine are childhood friends from WV, relatives in OH, friends in NY and NV. As someone who grew up an hour from DC with relatives who worked for the federal government, and who has lived in key swing states, as well as Canada and Europe, I think I have a good grasp on the political spectrum. I also gave you the 2000 and 2004 statistics on how Bush won by courting women voters and making the election a referendum on national security. There's something to be said for a candidate who starts without strong negatives; they have broader appeal.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 30, 2011 01:36 AM (mHQ7T)

1044 " I also gave you the 2000 and 2004 statistics on how Bush won by courting women voters and making the election a referendum on national security"
Yes, you included thost facts but no rationale bridging that zietgeisttothis one. Why, I do have a sister who fits your bill to a T, save the leisure to read your blogs.No matter, we absolutely do not need her.
Again, 2010 voting 46.5% GOP +27 per cent with the same percentage of Republican affiliates as 2006, 27%. Dimmis 42% in voting, -7%, 33% affiliates(down 8% of total).
Again, in CNN polls that undersampled Repugnants at 21%, 42% of Amerikkka would vote Magic again, 48% consider his 'presentency'a failure.
There is no comeback in the cards, stagflation is well and truly launched. No new BP spill is necessary to demonstrate Obominable's corrupt incompetence, and yet we've a Sunni meltdown over much of Arabia.
We thank W. for the only secure democracy in Arabia and for the class he brought to the Presidency. But he also brought the Bernanke, the Paulson, did not go to the mat over sub-prime lending or SS,endorsed a 10% increase in Medicaid entitlements,...
Yes it is a connundrum that educated, hardworking women who supported a businessman and governor over a kept metrosexual would support a token minority anti-American figureheadover a mother, but we've moved on.
The Joker's lack of experience is not our biggest problem, rather thatwhat therewas, utterly misguided. A Bush can no longer win the nomination.
"Government is not the solution, it is the problem"

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 30, 2011 08:08 AM (/g2vP)

1045 I'll vote for any candidate who has the slightest chance of abolishing most of the government. Too many of the candidates (e.g., Romney) increased the government. Only one candidate on that last has some experience combatting bureaucrats to make the government smaller.

Posted by: tehag at January 30, 2011 10:37 AM (ukGZk)

1046 Sarah Palin.
She has our backs like no one else. All the other possibles are a compromise at best. And isn't that why we got ourselves a fucking coward and pathalogical lying commie who ain't legal for a usurper in the White House? Sarah Palin believes in us and our great nation so much she is willing to do whatever it takes.
Time we had her back.

Posted by: Mt Top Patriot at January 30, 2011 10:41 AM (oJmNX)

1047 But he also brought the Bernanke, the Paulson, did not go to the mat
over sub-prime lending or SS,endorsed a 10% increase in Medicaid
entitlements...

Hank Paulson was a generous Republican contributor and prodigious Bush fundraiser (over $100,000) in the 2004 cycle, so he bought himself some credit, although his earlier political giving was more varied. Bush knew all this when he tapped Paulson as a Treasury chief who would command respect on
Wall Street. He was less a true Republican secretary than a transition
to the next Democratic Treasury -- a trademark of a lame-duck regime. Then Ben Bernanke -- go figure, the son of the President who referred to supply side as "voodoo economics" would look toward the Keynesians. However, Bush was aware of the threat the subprime markets posed, and his choosing Paulson and Bernanke only underscores this point. He tried unsuccessfully several times to reform the GSE's 17 times in 2008 alone. As early as the FY02 budget Bush declared that the size of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac is a potential problem, because financial trouble of a
large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets,
affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity. Likewise, Bush absolutely went to the mat for SS... and for immigration reform, or did you forget the great outcries from both parties then? Thanks to Bush's efforts to prevent total and inevitable economic collapse, the GOP is known now as the party of Wall Street (a reliably blue constituency) and Big Labor (ditto.) But it holds true that Democrats are always guilty of what they accuse their opponents of doing, and you should do he opposite of what they say. They are begging the Republicans to nominate Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 30, 2011 11:04 AM (mHQ7T)

1048 I think the best choice for Republicans is to start fresh with an optimistic newcomer who can sell our message convincingly to as many Americans as possible. It's absurd to automatically rule out potential voters when successful candidates mus build a coalition. Use Reagan's example here. You have to argue your ideas with people who disagree with you, just to test their strength. Reagan understood this, and his favorite president FDR understood this, and Obama shares this spirit with them. That is why he encouraged his supporters to "get in their faces." Republicans can no longer be a silent majority. For one, demography is changing.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 30, 2011 11:20 AM (mHQ7T)

1049 Reading Michael Barone's excellent article on Reagan at 100, two things really stood out. Who knows how effective Reagan might have been had he come into office a younger age than 70? Roosevelt entered the White House at 50, Eisenhower at 62, and if Roosevelt and
Eisenhower had serious health problems, Reagan was shot and came close
to dying in his second full month in office. His inattention to detail
and his reliance on chiefs of staff who rationed his time and set his
agenda arguably made him less effective than he might have been had he
come to office earlier in life. The Democrats used that to create a caricature of Reagan as a puppet ruled by special interests, a man who delivered his lines, although they said (and still do to this day) he had Alzheimer's.

But Ronald Reagan had an exceptional life possible only in America. He personified the American dream like no other 20th century president. All this was made possible by his rhetorical gifts. "I wasn't a great
communicator," said the man who talked his way into college, into radio,
into the movies, into politics and into the presidency, "but I
communicated great things, and they didn't spring full blown from my
brow, they came from the heart of a great nation -- from our experience,
our wisdom and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two
centuries."

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 30, 2011 11:42 AM (mHQ7T)

1050 Pat Buchanan said it best when he said no one can frame an issue like Sarah can and does. Death Panels, Blood Libel, WTF moments .... anyone? Can anyone cite anything that the others in the list has said over the past two years that comes even close to resonating with the public like those terms have. She will continue to be a thorn in the side of the Libs and the LSM until she has won the White House and then they will still get beat about the head and shoulders until she is through with them.Go,go,go SarahCuda!!!

Posted by: Gator Navy at January 30, 2011 03:59 PM (jzcB9)

1051 After reading the comments and seeing Big Mama Grizzley's dominance in this straw poll, it seems clear to me that folks want a FIGHTER to go up against the Leftists/Media Cabal in 2012.

They want a George S. Patton to be General, rather than a 'pencil-pusher' back at HQ.

*__*

Posted by: exodus2011 at January 30, 2011 04:06 PM (7HO2N)

1052 Enthusiastically for Mike Huckabee!

Posted by: gary Walter at January 30, 2011 09:57 PM (ovtoT)

1053 Not a very exciting list. How many times can one person vote?

Posted by: chris at January 30, 2011 10:19 PM (iUoj2)

1054 Will newt keep wife number three or replace her before the debates?

Posted by: chris at January 30, 2011 10:21 PM (iUoj2)

1055 SarahCuda for POTUS 2012 Get Use to IT!!!

Posted by: Catman at January 31, 2011 06:48 AM (/m7qL)

1056 1050 "I think the best choice for Republicans is to start fresh with an optimistic newcomer who can sell our message convincingly to as many Americans as possible"
Too bad "you forward looking Republicans" didn't get your 'tocks in gear a year ago. 2010 would have been a great year to stump for those sharing your "vision", fund-raising, issuing op-eds, getting one's face in front of voters,...
Where were you?

Posted by: gary gulrud at January 31, 2011 10:35 AM (/g2vP)

1057 Where were you?

Candidates with jobs outside of "FOX news analyst" tend to wait till the primaries to introduce themselves to voters. The voting public tends to appreciate this formality, since we're all sick of everyone by the campaign's end. The refrain inevitably heard when the media speculation begins is, "Dear God! Already?" "Give it a rest; it's (blank) away." etc.

Another 2012 possibility for me, who is not on this list, is Jon Huntsman. He is a rare governor with foreign policy experience, as well as private sector. He is suitably conservative on most issues. As a former missionary in Taiwan, he speaks fluent Mandarin. President Obama appointed him as ambassador to China. Huntsman has been awarded six honorary doctorate degrees, so he's frightfully intelligent. He graduated from University of Utah and got his bachelor's at U Penn. But he dropped out of high school to join a rock band, loves metal and played with REO Speedwagon at a state fair. As a Mormon, Glenn Beck has already spoken favorably about him as a primary candidate. He'd easily win NV.

Before people worry that he's too moderate after working in the Obama administration, he was a White House staff assistant during the Reagan years, Bush Sr.'s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and ambassador to Singapore and a Deputy US Trade Representative under W. This guy has serious policy chops, and I look forward to hearing his ideas.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 31, 2011 12:09 PM (mHQ7T)

1058 I wish I could just slap all these people that think Sarah Palin is the answer. She is a great fundraiser...she's terrific at rallying the troops...but she is NOT the answer. If people will actually use their minds and evaluate candidates, they will see that Cain is the choice! He is a REAL conservative with REAL solutions. Check him out, people!

Posted by: wes at January 31, 2011 12:15 PM (BT3VO)

1059 Hey wes, Go ahead and slap me if you think it will change my mind on whether to support Palin or not. I've got a green 2x4 I'd like to try out and I'm wearing my favorite steel-toed boots .

Posted by: bigmike at January 31, 2011 05:09 PM (yExWk)

1060 *__*

Posted by: exodus2011 at February 01, 2011 03:02 AM (7HO2N)

1061 Cain has no record in government. Period. He has never run for anything.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 01, 2011 08:59 AM (mHQ7T)

1062 altın ilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - zayıflama hapı - ozon yağı

Posted by: hyde at February 05, 2011 05:33 AM (45SgX)

1063 over 4000 votes for a moron? Really? No wonder politics suck so much...like flies to shit it's inevitable that morons get elected into power positions.

If sara gets the R nomination in 2012 I am never going to vote republican again as long as I live and I have voted R in almost every election in my life.

Posted by: really at February 08, 2011 05:44 PM (pCY/T)

1064 I've Voted for Ronald Regan because I like him and the press and Elites Hated Him in both Party.They said he was unelectable..

I will Vote for Sarah Palin I like Her and I will tell you that She Will Beat Obama'''

Posted by: Catman at February 11, 2011 09:00 PM (xoNd3)

1065 Word to PDF Converter is specially designed to convert doc to pdf, convert a
word to pdf
excel to pdfconvert

ppt to pdf Word to PDF Converter is specially designed to convert
doc to pdf, with the docx to PDF
software, not only can you convert .docx to pdf format but also
convert
word doc to pdf and more formats like PNG, JPEG, etc. Moreover using
the
doc to PDF Converter, you can also realize pdf combination, document
encryption and so forth. Now I will give a detail explanation about how
to convert doc to pdf, docx to pdf with Docx to PDF Converter.How to
convert xls to pdf, xlsx to pdf? This XLS to PDF Converter can
assist you and convert xls, xlsx to pdf files.XLSX to PDF
Converter is a splendid xlsx to pdf software to convert
xls, xlsx to pdf. Apart from powerful conversion function, you also can
edit pdf according to your need such as combine documents to one pdf,
set password protection, etc.

Posted by: oxpdf at February 24, 2011 09:41 PM (dmS1c)

1066 Thank you
oto kiralama

ara kiralama istanbul

oto kiralama istanbul

oto kiralama

Thank you
oto kiralama
Porsche Cayenne Kiralama
Binek ara kiralama
Gnlk oto kiralama
Gnlk ara kiralama
Lks ara kiralama
ara kiralama istanbul
araba kiralama istanbul
oto kiralama istanbul
ucuz araba kiralama
ekonomik ara kiralama
haftalk ara kiralama
istanbul oto kiralama
lks ara kiralama

Posted by: oto kiralama istanbul at February 25, 2011 05:05 AM (3Za+1)

1067 Formula 21 Formula21 Formula21forman Formula21formen Formula 21 formen Formula 21 forman mer coskun formula 21 kullanici yorumlari formula 21 ferula formula 21 formen kullanici yorumlari formula 21 formen faydalari formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 formen kullananlar formula 21 formen fiyati formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 forum formula 21 form formula 21 form kullanici yorumlari formula 21 form yorumlari formula 21 form tablet formula 21 form nasil kullanilir formula 21 form kullananlar formula 21 yorumlari formula 21 forum formula 21 women fire mer coskun rnleri mer coskun kimdir mer coskun zayiflama hapi mer coskun iletisim mer coskun adresi Nicdur
Formula 21 Formula21 Formula21forman Formula21formen Formula 21 formen Formula 21 forman mer coskun formula 21 kullanici yorumlari formula 21 ferula formula 21 formen kullanici yorumlari formula 21 formen faydalari formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 formen kullananlar formula 21 formen fiyati formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 forum formula 21 form formula 21 form kullanici yorumlari formula 21 form yorumlari formula 21 form tablet formula 21 form nasil kullanilir formula 21 form kullananlar formula 21 yorumlari formula 21 forum formula 21 women fire mer coskun rnleri mer coskun kimdir mer coskun zayiflama hapi mer coskun iletisim mer coskun adresi Nicdur
Formula 21 Formula21 Formula21forman Formula21formen Formula 21 formen Formula 21 forman mer coskun formula 21 kullanici yorumlari formula 21 ferula formula 21 formen kullanici yorumlari formula 21 formen faydalari formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 formen kullananlar formula 21 formen fiyati formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 forum formula 21 form formula 21 form kullanici yorumlari formula 21 form yorumlari formula 21 form tablet formula 21 form nasil kullanilir formula 21 form kullananlar formula 21 yorumlari formula 21 forum formula 21 women fire mer coskun rnleri mer coskun kimdir mer coskun zayiflama hapi mer coskun iletisim mer coskun adresi Nicdur
Formula 21 Formula21 Formula21forman Formula21formen Formula 21 formen Formula 21 forman mer coskun formula 21 kullanici yorumlari formula 21 ferula formula 21 formen kullanici yorumlari formula 21 formen faydalari formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 formen kullananlar formula 21 formen fiyati formula 21 formen nasil kullanilir formula 21 forum formula 21 form formula 21 form kullanici yorumlari formula 21 form yorumlari formula 21 form tablet formula 21 form nasil kullanilir formula 21 form kullananlar formula 21 yorumlari formula 21 forum formula 21 women fire mer coskun rnleri mer coskun kimdir mer coskun zayiflama hapi mer coskun iletisim mer coskun adresi Nicdur

Posted by: izlanda yosunu at February 27, 2011 03:08 PM (Gt9hY)

1068 solar panelThe main products we manufacture and export as below:
  Monocrystalline silicon solar panel, polycrystalline silicon solar panel, solar power system.
  solar street light, wind solar hybrid street light, solar garden light, solar sensor light, solar lawn light.
LED lamp for solar garden light, solar brick light, solar street lightsolar post cap, solar road stud, other solar lights and accessories

Posted by: vh4rb at March 06, 2011 08:53 PM (+e92r)

Posted by: manshetat at March 16, 2011 12:17 PM (cjWvf)

1070
Sarah Palin 2012 is the only one who can mopped out obama!

Posted by: Gnana at March 28, 2011 08:05 AM (1ZXRm)

1071 You shouldn't ignore dhgate 4 Of all the business Kids Air Max areas, wholesale Black Air Max jewelry White Air Max products can bring instrumental incomes You should be very careful nike air max white from whom you buy your wholesale jewelry from One Air Max 1 White Black way to assess Womens Air Max a trustworthy jewelry seller is to Mens Air Max find out whether they will accept returns or not Differently as an alternate, search for Jewelry retail nike air max black merchants or Wholesale merchants under the classified ads of yellow pages

Posted by: Cheap Jewelry at March 31, 2011 05:10 AM (XQOs2)

1072

Today I found a wonderful website,the site contained:


wedding dresses


cheap wedding dresses


Junior Bridesmaid Dresses


Cheap Homecoming Dresses


Cheap Quinceanera Dresses


Inexpensive bridesmaid dresses


Wholesale wedding dress


Cheap handbags sale


Wholesale wedding dress


Discount wedding dresses


Cheap Maternity Wedding Dresses


A-Line Wedding Dresses


Cheap Couture Wedding Dresses


Cheap Beach Wedding Dresses


Cheap Casual Wedding Dresses


Cheap Simple Wedding Dresses


Cheap Modest Wedding Dresses


Cheap Special Occasion Dresses


Cheap Evening Dresses


Cheap Prom Dresses


Cheap Little Black Dresses


Cheap Sequined Formal Dresses


Cheap Plus Size Wedding Dresses


Pink Wedding Dresses


Cheap Wedding Party Dresses


Cheap Bridesmaid Dresses


Cheap Flower Girl Dresses


Cheap Mother of the Bride Dresses

Posted by: huhuihui at April 02, 2011 05:50 AM (3hA2O)

1073 Best ipod to mac transfer is perfectly designed for Apple users, it is so useful and so powerful. ipod to mac

Posted by: ipod transfer at April 15, 2011 02:20 AM (2JYnr)

1074 You can may be discovered to be very splendid looking all round person, by just picking your most beloved where how can you buy abercrombie and fitchand fitch through the uk. even although you will step from home, each and every person.

Posted by: abercrombie and fitch uk at April 16, 2011 04:13 AM (9gvtN)

1075 Felt csc cycling jerseyrecently leakedcsc cycling a tightly cropped image cycling jerseys shortsof a new bike undergoing testing and team csc cyclingwhile there wasn't much discovery channeldetail, one thing is certain: the company is finally developing a full-carbon 'discovery channel jerseycross bike to supplement its discovery channel cycling clothinglong-running all-aluminum and aluminum-carbon modelspro cycling jersey.

Judging solely euskaltel euskadi clothingby the appearance of the euskaltel euskadi cycling teamseat cluster, Felt looks to be using the same InsideOut moulding processa href="http://www.bikejerseydiscount.com/euskaltel-euskadi-c-27.html">bicycle team jerseys it uses for its new upper-end F-series road frames. If so, we can expect to see very light frame weights C our guess for the 'cross version would be somewhere right around 1,000g, or about 100g long sleeve cycling jerseyheavier than the mid-range F frameteam clothing cycling.

Assumingfooton servetto cycling shorts the ride qualitieslong sleeve cycling jersey transfer over from the road, too, we can also expect a very lively and supple feel, and extremely high francaise des jeux clothingdrivetrain and torsional stiffness big cycling jerseyslevels.

Also based summer cycling jerseyon Felt's road design cuesclassic cycling jerseys, we're putting money on a tapered head tube, full carbon fork and a BB30-compatible bottom cheap cycling bibsbracket.

Felt's castelli bike clothingleaked image shows yellow cycling jerseythe bike with rim brakes road cycle jerseyand at least for now, non-removable giant bicycle clothinghousing stops on the top tube. giant clothingThe rearmost hanger is a giant jerseysbolt-on unit, though, which gives us at least a bit of hope that there will be a disc option as wellnew york giants red jersey.

Not santini cycling clothingsurprisingly,mens cycling jersey Felt was very tight-lipped about the new cycling jersey shortsbike and had little to say.

"That's bib short2010 cycling jerseyst know anything about it. Sorry."

Stay katusha bib shortstuned to Cyclingnews for additional details.

Posted by: shelly at April 29, 2011 10:31 PM (B9wDh)

1076
MBT Shoes

MBT Shoes on Sale

MBT Shoes Clearance

MBT Anti Sprots Shoes

MBT Mens Shoes

MBT Womens
Shoes

MBT Sandal Shoes

Louis Vuitton Outlet

Louis
Vuitton handbags outlet

Louis
Vuitton backpacks outlet

Louis Vuitton bags outlet

Louis
Vuitton Wallets outlet

Posted by: mehkjkj at April 30, 2011 09:31 AM (7oP79)

1077
Save Money Today
Tiffany sales blog
tiffanycollections Journal
Solitaire Design Assurance
Celebrity Fashion Jewelry
Devon Fine Jewelry
On behalf of everyone in Gujarat
Journey Adornment Collection
jewelrysilver
On behalf of everyone in Gujarat
The Absolute Shimmer with Design Bands
Designer Fashion Jewelry
silver1234's blog
overstocktiffany
shoptiffanyjewelry
Smith jewelry blog
shoptiffanyjewelry
Journey Adornment Collection
Jewelry for African American Bride
The first blog
Diamond Earrings
Swiss Replica Watch for Any Occasion
Sri Lanka and Its Gems
jewelryforu on xang
silver1234
Tiffany earrings
tiffanycollections
Smith Saletiffanys's blog
Tiffany earrings
Diamond Earrings

Posted by: Tiffany jewelry at May 25, 2011 10:39 PM (u+jZj)

1078 OBD China is a high-tech enterprise, which specialized in
developing, manufacturing and marketing car related products in
automotive aftermarket.We have an excellent RD team which is made up of the most
distinguished experts and engineers with years of experience in this
industry. All our products are manufactured with the strictest standards
to meet international quality and environment standards, including FCC,
CE and RoHS.The main products of OBD China include Auto Diagnostic/maintenance
Series, Auto ECU Programmer, Auto testing equipments, Odometer
correction/ Mileage adjust and Auto Electronics Series etc.obd, obd
ii, obd 2, scanner obd, Airbag Resetting
Tools, Auto
Diagnostic Tools, Auto ECU
programmer, CAR Key
Programmer, Car
Software Information, Cables
Connectors, EEprom Prog
Adapters, OBD2 Code
Scanner, chip
tuning, code
reader, elm327,
scantools, code scanner, launch x431, obd2 scanners, eobd, obd software,

Posted by: obd at May 26, 2011 11:21 PM (mEkUd)

1079 2011
2011
2011
1432 - 1433
2011
1432


2011
2011
2011
2011


-




2011




2011

2011
2011
18
2
7

Posted by: at June 17, 2011 12:35 AM (NrQAO)

1080 Buy cheap vibram five fingers from online shop. We recommend this cheap vibram five fingers shoes with best service. Do you know cheap vibram fivefingers at online shop? If so, please order cheap five finger shoes cheap five fingers at Vibramfivefingershey,Inc..

Posted by: cheap vibram five fingers at June 19, 2011 03:21 AM (GFDME)

1081 Unless this trend stops, the company of a human and Sac Chanel Rabat or coco chanel sacone other puppy throughout the day. The Jack Russell outside, along with space to run plus most of the forests could be gone, in the future.Are you trying to puzzle out what you can do to be able to De façon plus gnrale dans le monde, et que cette incroyable des lgumes sac chanel 2.55 prix. Deuximement, ils ne sont pas, en ce qui concerne le prix prix lors de leur arrive Sur le march du travail. Elle ne vous aura un sac main chanel vintagecoût pour admirer patate douce correct.

Posted by: sac at June 21, 2011 04:11 AM (nWvzT)

1082 I was so clumsy that I did not know how to make the bed and fix the mosquito net.
http://www.cheapwebstore.com/

Posted by: discount handbags at June 21, 2011 05:06 AM (eY+Xk)

1083 Oh, look at these freshmen! It was our middle-school-students looking that gave us away.

Posted by: chi ceramic flat iron at June 21, 2011 05:08 AM (eY+Xk)

1084 Attending schools abroad has many advantages.

Posted by: oakley outlet at June 21, 2011 05:10 AM (eY+Xk)

1085 Buy mulberry alexa bags online, Sell
href="http://www.mulberrybagssale.com/mulberry-bayswater-bag-c-30.html">Mulberry Bayswater, huge discount on Tory Burch Handbags, also have products and ed hardy school bags

Posted by: peter at June 29, 2011 10:46 PM (uBjC9)

1086 Our online store supply asics running shoes with big discount and fast free shipping to worldwide!

Posted by: onitsuka tiger sale at July 01, 2011 09:52 PM (Ikj/O)

1087 Ray Ban Wayfarer

Posted by: Ray Ban Wayfarer at July 01, 2011 11:27 PM (sEl/M)

1088 Hermes Kelly Bag

Posted by: Hermes Kelly Bag at July 01, 2011 11:28 PM (sEl/M)

1089 dy accessories,just waiting for your love,beautiful and colorful items,no on

Posted by: Ray Ban Aviator at July 01, 2011 11:28 PM (sEl/M)

1090 Radii Shoesdefinitely reflect each individual's unique personality from the feet up. They combines fashion forward buckle and zipper detail with enticing color and design schemes.The Straight Jacket combines fashion forward buckle and zipper detail with enticing color and design schemes.With futuristic designs and materials, each shoe exudes confidence for the ambitious forward-thinkers of the world.

Posted by: radii shoes at July 05, 2011 02:50 AM (COQU4)

1091 The juicy couture store product juicy couture jewelry appeals to an eclectic array of customers, and they are constantly pushing limits in their designs and ideas.The perfect The cheap juicy handbags depends on your personal tastes shop juicy couture online

Posted by: HEBE at July 06, 2011 05:59 AM (ZFbGl)

1092 Our online store recommend onitsuka tiger sale with best price at Asicsrunningshop,Inc..

Posted by: asics running shoes at July 06, 2011 11:46 AM (CKOIY)

1093 thanks dude
great job !!
traidnt







traidnt institute
traidnt.net


traidnt








traidnt


traidnt


seo















Posted by: tmen at July 09, 2011 03:49 AM (w0lwL)

1094 yiwu agents
yiwu sourcing agents
agents in yiwu
yiwu supplier
yiwu suppliers
yiwu suppliers

Posted by: yiwu at July 12, 2011 04:03 AM (xnbHn)

1095
دردشة العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات العراق جات العراق
دردشه عراقيه
دردشه العراق شات عراقي
جات عراقي
عراق3 دردشة عراق3
شات عراق3
جات عراق3 عراق روز
دردشة عراق روز
شات عراق روز
جات عراق روز
منتديات عراق روز
دردشة عراق الرومانسية
شات عراق رومانسية
جات عراق الرومانسية
عراق الرومانسية
منتديات عراق الرومانسية
موسوعة الخليج
عراق29
دردشة عراق29
منتديات عراق29
قلب العراق دردشة
قلب العراق
شات قلب العراق
جات قلب العراق
منتديات قلب العراق
صبايا العراقية
دردشة صبايا العراقية
دردشة صبايا العراق
منتديات صبايا العراقية
شات صبايا العراقية
عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
شات عراقنا
جات عراقنا
منتديات عراقنا

منتديات العراق
منتدى العراق
منتدى عراقي
منتديات عراقية
منتديات عراق3
منتدى عراق3
دليل المواقع
دليل المواقع العراقية
دليل
اضف موقعك
اغاني عراقية
اغاني العراق
طرب العراق
طرب عراقي
العاب
العاب فلاشية العاب العراق
العاب عراقية
العاب 2011

عراق اب
عراقي اب مركز
العراق لرفع الملفات مركز رفع الصور
مركز عراق3 لرفع الصور

عراق3 اب
اب عراق3

دردشة العراق
دردشة عراقية

دردشة
دردشة شات
جات

Posted by: دردشة العراق at July 12, 2011 02:32 PM (cENTq)

1096

here is no denying that buying Swiss Replica Watches
has become a trend in modern society. However, it is not an easy task
to find a high quality one especially you a freshman in the related
field. You have to collect as much information as you can about the
retailer who you are going to deal with because its credit standing
directly influences the quality to the timepiece. Therefore, Replica Rolex
of guidelines are offered for you to make a right decision.

Firstly, you can never to too cautious on checking the details of a
replica watch. A reputable website usually comes with a good number of
pictures which display the watch details such as markings, engravings,
materials and dial face features. Everyone wants to buy an imitation
with high grade leather strap or stainless steel bracelet. Usually
speaking, the quality Rolex Replica
is made up of sapphire crystal glass and Swiss made movement so that
the durability and time accuracy are ensured.

Secondly, make sure that you are buying from a reliable source. It
should be evaluated before you make a choice on the style. As far as we
know, there are a large number of dealers who are doing the similar
business. At a temporary time, it is impossible to have a thorough
knowledge about all of them. Thus, you are recommended to search as much
information as you can to evaluate its reputation. For a good Rolex Daytona,
it always comes with available telephone number which can be used for
consultant or online services. What is more, the trustworthy website
guarantees periodical refund for quality issue Swiss Replica Omega.
According to my experience, the best way is to check the customer
satisfaction including the positive and negative feedbacks from the
previous buyers.

Posted by: tian at July 13, 2011 05:40 AM (FBHr2)

1097 thank you for sharing,i love this information.Joe Flacco Jersey
Ray Lewis Jersey
Ray Rice Jersey
Ed Reed Jersey

Posted by: ravens jersey at July 14, 2011 01:21 AM (2a2qa)






Processing 0.18, elapsed 0.1899 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0345 seconds, 1106 records returned.
Page size 677 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat