December 28, 2010
— Gabriel Malor There really isn't any news to speak of today, so . . . how about more 2012 speculation. CNN/Opinion Research has a new poll out gauging support for several probable candidates. On the Democrat side -- surprise, surprise -- 78% want to see the President run for election.
The Republican results are just heartbreaking, though. Somehow 67% say they would support Certain Fuckin' Doomabee if he sought the nomination. That compares to 59% for Mitt Romney and 54% for Newt Gingrich. The only other possible candidate polled was Sarah Palin, who only got 49%.
I guess Huckabee's TV show is paying off, huh?
The poll results are here (PDF). The margin of error for the Republican sample is +/- 4.5% points.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:47 AM
| Comments (259)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Vinman at December 28, 2010 08:49 AM (HOYRo)
On almost every conservative website i view, i never see people who support huckabee. I am convinced that Huckabee supporters do not use the internet very often or travel to conservative websites.
This furthers my theory that his main constituency is older evangelicals.
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 08:51 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Ted F'n Turner in his Global Warming bunker at December 28, 2010 08:52 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: Anachronda at December 28, 2010 08:53 AM (6fER6)
This must be my cue to stop in and say something clever about homosexuality.
Posted by: Clever Huckabee Sockpuppet at December 28, 2010 08:54 AM (9v9TB)
I dont think polls means very much now.
Ugh.. Huckabee. I am sure he is a lovely person but.. no.
Posted by: Timbo at December 28, 2010 08:54 AM (ph9vn)
Poll results are the result of the questions asked, not the actual views of actual voters. And if the same poll was taken again today, the results would be different.
Nothin' to see here. But I'm sure the partisans for Mutt Romney and the Divine Sarah will make this a thousand-comment post.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 28, 2010 08:54 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Clever Huckabee Sockpuppet at December 28, 2010 08:54 AM (9v9TB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 28, 2010 08:54 AM (9Cooa)
Posted by: Clever Huckabee Sockpuppet at December 28, 2010 08:55 AM (9v9TB)
Posted by: Anachronda at December 28, 2010 12:53 PM
Damn, I hope so!
Bell/Noory '12!!11!!!
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 28, 2010 08:55 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 08:56 AM (xRZ9q)
Posted by: RedneknSC at December 28, 2010 08:57 AM (x8U/s)
Can we officially ban people from voting in R primaries if they are willing to vote for someone primarily because they believe it is someone's "turn".
Posted by: 18-1 at December 28, 2010 08:57 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Dr. Love at December 28, 2010 08:58 AM (STTZD)
Posted by: buzz at December 28, 2010 08:58 AM (i27M5)
Oh darn.
I was still in the non-political prediction mode. I shall continue.
In 2011 Morons will still like their stompy boots & NASCAR
(you know not to click on my links, right?)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 28, 2010 08:58 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 12:56 PM (xRZ9q)
Hey, letting the State Media pick our candidate for us in 2008 worked so well though.
Posted by: Some Gullible Republican at December 28, 2010 08:59 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: willow at December 28, 2010 09:00 AM (h+qn8)
Not interested.
Really, as has been said here before: the MFM are already trying to select our candidate for us. They either want Huckabee or Romney- both of which (for different reasons) would really turn off the base. So expect this kind of thing non-stop for the next year, at least.
It's the same thing they've been doing to Sarah Palin- taking a poll on her electability just a few months (IIRC it was like Feb or March 09 when they did the first one) after she was on the losing ticket was designed (and seems to have worked) to "prove" that she's unelectable.
We need to stop paying any attention whatsoever to MFM polls at least until the primaries are over.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:00 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 28, 2010 09:00 AM (xJVlJ)
Americans will be looking for an economic guru for President by election time. The economy will still be weak, and buget problems at all levels will be worse.
Posted by: Meremortal at December 28, 2010 09:02 AM (rtFt9)
(you know not to click on my links, right?)
I had to do it! The youngun'. in the cart is a nice touch...baby tramp in training. Poor kid.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:02 AM (Ty06w)
Just look at the weak willed, afraid of the MSM office holders we have been putting into office for the last 30 years. (and then have the nerve to complain about their lack of spine)
Huck is a passive-aggressive....very unseemly in a man.
Yuck.
Posted by: pam at December 28, 2010 09:02 AM (uDwml)
On the other side, though, Huckabee is a candidate three strata beneath even McCain. Put Mitt Romney in the negative column as well. I'm not thrilled to see any big-government R's on the list, and both fall into that category. As for Gingrich, he needs to be haunted by reminders of sitting on a couch with Pelosi until he either quits the campaign or gets his mind right.
We need a doctrinaire movement small-government conservative who can excite the voters. Christie, Jindal, Rubio, Ryan, somebody cut from that cloth.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 28, 2010 09:03 AM (Jdtsu)
Posted by: justin cord at December 28, 2010 09:03 AM (c0+w5)
Posted by: joeindc44 at December 28, 2010 09:03 AM (QxSug)
As I heard on a (non-political, I know surprising, right) podcast the other day: guru just translates to "guy in a cave you can't get to."
I don't know that we'll be looking for a financial guru, I think we'd be willing to settle for someone who listens very closely to well-respected (in conservative circles) financial gurus. I don't need Thomas Sowell for president. Sec. Tres would be awesome, though.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:04 AM (8y9MW)
If Huck is the candidate, I will not support him.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 09:04 AM (mEyVv)
There it is.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at December 28, 2010 01:01 PM (vbh31)
It reminds me of those stories of people who are conscious during surgery, but unable to speak or move while the surgeons remove the wrong limb, crack jokes and put the patient through hell.
I don't know what the cure for the paralysis is though, but if we don't find it... we'll have McCain 2.0 for 2012.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:04 AM (Ty06w)
Posted by: Purity Of Essence at December 28, 2010 09:05 AM (P1vpT)
Well, from their perspective, they were quite successful.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:05 AM (8y9MW)
How about a name from the past? Dan Quayle. I saw him on a show recently and by golly I think he might make a credible candidate if he wants to step back on to the national stage.
Posted by: Just A Grunt at December 28, 2010 09:05 AM (pOC9r)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 09:05 AM (xRZ9q)
Posted by: Huck's Obese Sons at December 28, 2010 09:06 AM (mEyVv)
Get back to the ship and nuke the site from orbit?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:06 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:07 AM (OlN4e)
Yuck.
Posted by: pam at December 28, 2010 01:02 PM (uDwml)
But does he CRY at the drop of a hat?
Posted by: John Boner at December 28, 2010 09:07 AM (6DDE+)
Never again.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 09:07 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at December 28, 2010 09:07 AM (BZ2Bm)
I don't think Dan Quayle has it in him. Besides, can you imagine all the "potatoe" jokes? Let alone "he'll set feminism back 100 years!" (Thank you, 'Murphy Brown'...)
And, really, I'm not sure he's all that interested.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:08 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:10 AM (OlN4e)
Well, he's talking more about running, so it's a possibility. He lost me when he went all AGW a year or two back, though.
Newt, just so you understand, we don't talk about "Conservative Solutions" to problems which don't actually exist.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:10 AM (8y9MW)
For Viagra?
Posted by: andycanuck at December 28, 2010 09:12 AM (2rOwc)
Posted by: Doug at December 28, 2010 09:12 AM (gUGI6)
CNN/MSM would LOVE to see Huckleberry run. They would LOVE to select our candidate for us...just like we would all love to see Alvin Greene get the Dims' nomination.
Pence Makes Sense. 2012.
Posted by: Navy Guy at December 28, 2010 09:12 AM (dOOBu)
It doesn't matter who is nominated.
The important thing is that s/he alienates/takes for granted the GOP base, ignores the red states, and tries to woo those swing-voters in the blue states.
That, my friends, is a winning formula.
Posted by: Soothsayer Chamberlain at December 28, 2010 09:13 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 09:13 AM (xRZ9q)
Pence.
Unfortunately I don't think he's running -- but there's no one close that's as impressive imho as him.
I dont' care that he's 'only a legislator' thought process. We don't have time to be picky.
I don't think we can wait around to get a strong Gov. CC isn't running. Either is Perry. They're already trying their damnest to diminish Barbour. Other that that, there is no other qualified or electable Gov to offer up.
I think we need to move on from that line of thinking.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 28, 2010 09:13 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:14 AM (OlN4e)
It doesn't matter who is nominated.
The important thing is that s/he alienates/takes for granted the GOP base, ignores the red states, and tries to woo those swing-voters in the blue states.
That, my friends, is a winning formula.
Posted by: Soothsayer Chamberlain at December 28, 2010 01:13 PM (uFokq)
AKA: Suicide by stupidity.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:16 AM (Ty06w)
Posted by: Cicero at December 28, 2010 09:16 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 09:17 AM (xRZ9q)
Posted by: Just A Grunt at December 28, 2010 09:18 AM (pOC9r)
btw, what does it say for our chances in 2012 when not a single household name/heavy-hitter is interested in chairing the RNC?
The GOP is in the midst of a revival, one would think, no? And no one 'big' wants the job?
It's a bad omen.
Posted by: Soothsayer Chamberlain at December 28, 2010 09:18 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 01:13 PM (xRZ9q)
Nice to see other PA morons here. I'm in Lebanon county, which thankfully is about as red as you can get here in Central PA.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 28, 2010 09:18 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:19 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at December 28, 2010 09:19 AM (/je1T)
Posted by: Annabelle at December 28, 2010 09:19 AM (4kxCX)
Well, the election in 2008 gave me a choice. McCain or Obama. Ignoring the path to that decision point, I voted McCain.
If Huckabee is the candidate in 2012, I'll have the same choice, and make the same decision.
So it goes...
Posted by: ed at December 28, 2010 09:20 AM (QLhy5)
As someone pointed out above, Huckabee has his own Willie Horton, the guy he pardoned in Arkansas who went to Washington state and killed those cops. His evangelical base might think it's a great idea to turn the other cheek repeatedly until your nose gets broken, but the rest of the country, umm no.
The mfm will keep silent on all of Huck's many flaws until he secures the nomination and then turn on him like the rabid ferrets they are.
Posted by: Boots at December 28, 2010 09:20 AM (neKzn)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:21 AM (OlN4e)
Look at what we've got going for us:
1. the big mo'. Right now, people hate the GOP a little less than they hate the Democrats.
2. Obama, the face of the Democrat party, is a complete failure and a phony.
3. Shitty economy, high energy costs, and rampant govt malfeasance.
It's all right there for the taking. Yet no one is taking. Why?
Posted by: Soothsayer Chamberlain at December 28, 2010 09:21 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 09:21 AM (mEyVv)
The wench of the north will shoot the moose.
Fire, death, exploding heads in the Ton of Washing.
Posted by: joncelli Nostradamus at December 28, 2010 09:22 AM (MLQL2)
Posted by: predictions at December 28, 2010 09:22 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: recklessprocess at December 28, 2010 09:22 AM (oHufc)
If there was a CNN poll that had respondents one hundred percent agreeing the sun came up in the east, I'd stand here and call bullshit.
They're doing nothing but ramping up the "Pick the Republican candidate for 2012" groundwork.
Not this time assholes.
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 28, 2010 09:23 AM (eCAn3)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at December 28, 2010 09:23 AM (YmPwQ)
With Newt, yeah the global warming thing pissed me off. But I think Newt had some real principles which he strayed from -- whereas Huckabee never had any principles to begin with.
In Newt's case I think it's the fact that he spent a decade after politics getting rich and hanging out with the ultra-rich. And by the time Newt jumped on the eco-nazi bandwagon practically everybody else had (especially among the rich). Being "green" seemed a good way for Repub politicos to soften their image and say, "See, I care about the planet just as much as the liberal bleeding hearts. See, I'm not a horrible right winger."
No politician is immune to public opinion. If they think 70-80% of the public agrees with the "green" agenda then the political class will go there.
So I can forgive Newt this transgression if he admits he made a mistake and strayed from his principles.
I've been railing against the eco-scum my whole life so it was a real setback when Newt went Al Gore like that.
But I do believe that Newt believes in free markets, limited govt, free trade, etc, etc. I don't think Huckabee believes in any of that. At least Huckabee can't argue persuasively for any of his positions. He can't articulate reasons for the things he claims to believe in.
Huckabeee would be "Compassionate" Conservatism on steroids.
Posted by: bobbo at December 28, 2010 09:24 AM (BXqkH)
Well that and a supporter fo the Fair Tax.
Posted by: Just A Grunt at December 28, 2010 09:24 AM (pOC9r)
Posted by: kansas at December 28, 2010 09:25 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at December 28, 2010 09:25 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 09:25 AM (XXyJt)
I predict a new Bieberesque teenage pop singer will arise and be the only thing the teenyboppers talk about. Then years later he will be found lying in a gutter passed out after having beaten up a prostitute.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 28, 2010 09:26 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: davidingeorgia at December 28, 2010 09:26 AM (02KaY)
This poll is more notable for who's not in it than who is, namely Mike Pense or the Round Mound of Fiscal Soundness.
Fuck the MFM. They're not going to do this again. McLame was a disaster, but it was "his turn"? Give me a break. It's time for a real president, not some idiot that The Vapid One© would wipe the floor with.
We only have a year. Let's pick our own candidate for once, shall we?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 28, 2010 09:27 AM (b6qrg)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at December 28, 2010 09:27 AM (/je1T)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:28 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:28 AM (Ty06w)
It's all right there for the taking. Yet no one is taking. Why?
Who knows. But you hit the nail on the head last week (I think it was you). Anyway, we need 'Conservative Town Halls'. Not on a single issue and not for any reason other than getting our message out.
We're always reacting to Issue X or Bill Y. It's time to be proactive w/conveying the message of conservatism.
It's so bloody simple.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 28, 2010 09:29 AM (pLTLS)
I assume (hope) Bloomberg would primarily pull votes away from Obama, but I suppose he could pick up the well-heeled folks who think he's some kind of fiscal genius (and who don't care much about the nanny statism).
If the Libertarians so much as whisper about a third-party run, we should fucking crush them. They're of very little help to us and a constant thorn in our side.
Posted by: Y-not at December 28, 2010 09:29 AM (IDL9N)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at December 28, 2010 09:30 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Sam at December 28, 2010 09:30 AM (Cxsey)
I happen to See Dead People and I know already that Lohan will die choking on her own vomit. When? Not sure.
Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Billy of Avon at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (xxgag)
I can vote for Romney and not regret it, given the current people who are running for certain, he is probably my favorite, however, I am hopefull the field expands, because there are better options out there.
That said, I cannot think of anyone worse than Suckoffabee winning. While in the charisma and debate category he is a major upgrade over McCain, I just don't want a third George Bush term.
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Cicero at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: logprof at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (pdvWd)
Who knows. But you hit the nail on the head last week (I think it was you). Anyway, we need 'Conservative Town Halls'. Not on a single issue and not for any reason other than getting our message out.
We're always reacting to Issue X or Bill Y. It's time to be proactive w/conveying the message of conservatism.
It's so bloody simple.
We're our own worst enemies in this--- Like maiden Aunts who think it's unladylike to approach strangers while the tarts on the corner are getting to every man in town.
When it comes to the game of politics, we're still in T-ball.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (Ty06w)
If the Libertarians so much as whisper about a third-party run, we should fucking crush them.
Yeah, well that goes for any dipshit 'GOPer' that goes that route as well. You know, not for their own fame & glory or anything. For the good of the country of course.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 28, 2010 09:31 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 09:32 AM (xRZ9q)
I think our biggest threat right now is a third-party run by Ron Paul or Nanny Bloomberg. The former would do so out of his own bizarre self-delusion; the latter would do it as part of a deal cut with Obama.
I don't think it will hurt us at all. A run by them would hurt Republicans as much as The Anderson Difference did
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 09:32 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at December 28, 2010 09:32 AM (/je1T)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 09:32 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 01:28 PM (OlN4e)
Yeah, reality TV tends to hurt a persons image IMO.
Posted by: Sam at December 28, 2010 09:32 AM (Cxsey)
Posted by: CNN/Opinion Research at December 28, 2010 09:33 AM (dwP7W)
Posted by: Cincinnatus at December 28, 2010 09:33 AM (d4svm)
Posted by: t-bird at December 28, 2010 09:33 AM (kho+0)
What is wrong with Sarah Palin? It's quite simple. She and her family have not conducted themselves with enough dignity over the past 2 years to gather the political weight necessary to get the nomination. And I say this as a fan of her's. Mores the pity.
I'm not voting for her in the primaries. If she wins i will campaign for her like crazy, but she definately isn't my first option.
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 09:34 AM (wuv1c)
Anyway I echo the sentiment of so many others. We can't let the media pick our candidates, but alas with our short attention span population that is exactly what will happen. I say if you have ever appeared on an episode of 'Jaywalking' your voter registration should be revoked. If you watch any of the so called reality shows like Jersey Shores, Real HOusewives, or the Kardasians, ditto.
Posted by: Just A Grunt at December 28, 2010 09:35 AM (pOC9r)
Palin or Ryan. It would be nice if people went to youtube and looked at Ryan talking with Zero.
I don't think there is anyone out there who hates Ryan, the problem is that I don't think he wants to run.
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 09:35 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Nighthawk at December 28, 2010 09:35 AM (02uN6)
Posted by: CNN/Opinion Research at December 28, 2010 01:33 PM (dwP7W)
The only thing I know for sure is that you can't trust Fox News.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 28, 2010 09:35 AM (xxgag)
Yeah, there's an entire generation out there that has no idea what conservatism is.
And we have a generation that forgot what conservatism is.
Let's face it, the GOP is an aimless, core-less party with no values and a blurry ideology. You ask 100 people what conservatism is, 25 of them won't know, and 50 of them will say conservatism is the place for racisthomophonebigotry.
Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 28, 2010 09:36 AM (uFokq)
Two reasons:
1) The Not One Red Cent movement is still ongoing. The RNC is going to have to prove themselves before they start getting contributions again, and when you're primary function is fund-raising, it's hard to prove yourself if no one is donating.
2) RAAAAACIST!!!!
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:36 AM (8y9MW)
Nice to see other PA morons here. I'm in Lebanon county, which thankfully is about as red as you can get here in Central PA.
------
Nice. I think western PA is very red now with exception of Allegheny county. Murthas district was on the precipice of red in November and that was gerrymandered to pack Democrats 10 years ago. We just néed to gerrymander it a little. Oh and I seriously hope corbett changes the alcohol laws here. I want to buy beer at a grocery store for crying out loud
It looks like my district PA-4 and PA-12 are on the chopping block. it'll be interesting to see how redistricting plays out
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 09:37 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Just A Grunt at December 28, 2010 01:35 PM (pOC9r)
I'm trying to be Lady Gaga's 100 millionth follower on Twitter!
Posted by: Drone at December 28, 2010 09:38 AM (pdvWd)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 09:39 AM (mEyVv)
Never underestimate the abilility of the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Think "Whip inflation now", "Read my lips", Bob fucking depends Dole, John "He's a decent family man and citizen" McAmnesty. And now we have the career criminal coddling. bib ell thumper, candidate....wow...that'll work perfectly. betcha DemocRATs are already contributing to him.
Posted by: *Cynical* torabora at December 28, 2010 09:40 AM (YLhBm)
Expect every news story to start off with "with Mike Huckabee leading the pack..blah blah blah" and "since Mike Huckabee became the clear front-runner...bs bs bs"
Awwshucksabee is a fucking menace. His weak-wristed doughy ass needs to get out of the way. He's a pussy.
We don't need a Pastor-in-Chief or a sweet uncle to bake us cookies and buy us cotton candy at the state fair.
The United States needs a leader with a rock jaw in 2012 or it may just go full-commie.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 09:41 AM (vn4ta)
I wouldn't mind a Demint/Guilliani ticket.
Rudy makes an excellent attack dog.
But I already know who the nominee is going to be.
Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 28, 2010 09:41 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 09:41 AM (SN4+f)
Except Fuckabee.
And if Republicans are stupid enough to nominate that shitstain, then it doesn't matter anyway--we're fucking doomed.
I find the fact that he gets as much support as he does discouraging, to put it mildly.
If a bunch of backwards ass, nanny-state, Christian statist dumbshits serve him up as our nominee, then I will become utterly unwilling to play by the rules anymore.
Every man for himself.
Posted by: Warden at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (V6HDd)
Posted by: Hike Muckabee at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (mEyVv)
Think "Whip inflation now", "Read my lips", Bob fucking depends Dole, John "He's a decent family man and citizen" McAmnesty.
Bob Dole doesn't appreciate this kind of insulting reference.
Posted by: Bob Dole at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (ujg0T)
Because he started the recession. Remember?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 28, 2010 01:29 PM (pLTLS)
I really like that idea, but how would you get it started? And how would you attract the people who most need to hear those ideas (i.e. the "reflexive" or "natural" liberals)?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (SN4+f)
This. She is (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be a "quitter" and while the FB posts and Twitters are adequate in their own way, she needs to do something like these proposed "Conservative Town Halls" and actually go out and press the flesh to gain some more credibility.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 28, 2010 09:42 AM (9hSKh)
Yeah, there's an entire generation out there that has no idea what conservatism is.
And we have a generation that forgot what conservatism is.
Let's face it, the GOP is an aimless, core-less party with no values and a blurry ideology. You ask 100 people what conservatism is, 25 of them won't know, and 50 of them will say conservatism is the place for racisthomophonebigotry.
Posted by: Soothsayer Moribund at December 28, 2010 01:36 PM (uFokq)
Almost everyone I know (with kids, a job, a home etc) is conservative. However, 30% of them ID themselves as liberal because 'they're the good guys'.
Most peoiple by nature drift towards a degree of conservatism as they become more responsible and have more life experience. But again, the 'party' of the GOP is clueless as to how to connect with the average voter and say "we're you---we represent all you believe."
DNC however, my be the minority in ideology but they're master minds in understanding how human beings think. So they own the dialogue.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:43 AM (Ty06w)
Posted by: GOP Establishment at December 28, 2010 09:43 AM (mEyVv)
What is wrong with Sarah Palin? It's quite simple. She and her family have not conducted themselves with enough dignity over the past 2 years to gather the political weight necessary to get the nomination. And I say this as a fan of her's. Mores the pity.
Sarah Palin should replace the pathetic Michael Steele as GOP chair. The job is spot-on for her. She would be an outstanding party chair.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 09:43 AM (ujg0T)
DNC however, my be the minority in ideology but they're master minds in understanding how human beings think. So they own the dialogue.
You didn't even mention the awesome logo.
Posted by: The Democratic National Committee at December 28, 2010 09:45 AM (QKKT0)
141 I dunno--on his show, Huck has gone out of his way to mend fences and soothe the feathers he ruffled, and he does seem to have wised up about the immigration issue. It might not be the end of the world if he won nomination, although I prefer others.
Yeah, and he will remain wised up until he takes office, then right back to squish.
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:45 AM (OlN4e)
A man can say whatever he wants. His actions speak to who he is.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 28, 2010 09:45 AM (8y9MW)
Except Fuckabee Ron Paul
---
fif me.
I've searched my soul and as of right now, despite how much I loathe him, I would vote for Huckabee against Obama in the general.
I will never vote for Ron Paul. I guess I was just not vote.
Posted by: Y-not at December 28, 2010 09:46 AM (IDL9N)
Sarah Palin should replace the pathetic Michael Steele as GOP chair. The job is spot-on for her. She would be an outstanding party chair.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 01:43 PM (ujg0T)
I tend to agree with that 100%.
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:46 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Jack I ain't dead Bauer at December 28, 2010 09:46 AM (pOC9r)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 01:42 PM (ujg0T)
One of my main issues with him, amongst many, is that foreign policy will come roaring back with a vengeance next term and he simply is not up to snuff.
147 What is wrong with Sarah Palin? It's quite simple. She and her family have not conducted themselves with enough dignity over the past 2 years to gather the political weight necessary to get the nomination. And I say this as a fan of her's. Mores the pity.Sarah Palin should replace the pathetic Michael Steele as GOP chair. The job is spot-on for her. She would be an outstanding party chair.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 01:43 PM (ujg0T)
I agree with you both here.
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 09:46 AM (SN4+f)
Yeah, and he will remain wised up until he takes office, then right back to squish.
You know, I supported Mitt back in 2008, but frankly, Huck is looking better than Mitt now. That's not saying much for Huck.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 09:47 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Ghost of 1980 Naysayers at December 28, 2010 09:47 AM (mEyVv)
Howzabout a GOP draft, like the NFL? We could have a couple of rounds of about three candidates each and whittle it down to whoever puts up the least fight. Write-ins, baybee! Hell, it worked in Alaska.
Pense, Christie and Palin in the first round, Rubio, DeMint and Barbour in the second. Maybe a third round of Wild Cards.
It couldn't be any worse than CNN trying to dictate the GOP candidates, could it?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 28, 2010 09:47 AM (b6qrg)
He wants to be President Andy Taylor. What he is is the Republican Jimmah Cawta
I hope he isn't fooling anyone but blue-haired old ladies.
He'll fold like a Waffle House napkin for every Democrat "feel good" piece of shit social giveaway bill that comes down the pike.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 09:48 AM (vn4ta)
But that's the kicker---- even with a Potty in Blue logo, and dozens of screw ups, they still lead the dance.
It's like being Ginger Rogers being pared with Steven Hawking in a tango. She may be the better dancer, but he still gets to determine the steps.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:48 AM (Ty06w)
It couldn't be any worse than CNN and a front-loaded, winner take all state by state, and too rapid primary system trying to dictate the GOP candidates, could it?
Slight fix there.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 09:49 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Big T Party at December 28, 2010 09:49 AM (FfyYt)
And Sam for Bartender General.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 28, 2010 09:50 AM (xxgag)
164 The perfect candidate would be Michael Weston, the ousted spy in the tv series "Burn Notice". He has a soft spot for the little person but realizes that quite often the best solution to a problem is an appropriate amount of firepower and explosives.
And Sam for Bartender General.
And Fiona for Secretary of Defense.
Posted by: ¤§EZB§¤ at December 28, 2010 09:52 AM (Ty06w)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 09:54 AM (xRZ9q)
This. She is (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be a "quitter" and while the FB posts and Twitters are adequate in their own way, she needs to do something like these proposed "Conservative Town Halls" and actually go out and press the flesh to gain some more credibility.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 28, 2010 01:42 PM (9hSKh)
//
Isn't the activity you're describing called campaigning?
Posted by: Mary Beth at December 28, 2010 09:54 AM (uGE+P)
156 That Reagan guy was in a movie with a monkey. He's not dignified enough to be President!
Poor comparison. Reagan built a pretty solid track record as a conservative politician after his acting career. Sarah Palin is doing entertainment right now. So is her family. All of them. Her daughter had a baby by the most pathetic character ever trying to get his shitty little mug on tv.He is still out there making them look bad. That's a fact. And like I said, I am a fan of her politics.
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 09:55 AM (OlN4e)
I say if you have ever appeared on an episode of Jaywalking, your voter registration should be revoked.
Pansy. I say if you've ever watched Oprah, you should be physically thrown out of any polling place you enter. That woman has done more to wreck the moral fibre of the Republic than anyone. Her audience is a bunch of goddam whiny, lazy-assed, celebutramp-worshiping mooches.
Romney's a gutless statist asshole. I live in Massachusetts - he'd whore out his wife if it meant getting a blowjob from the Boston Globe. I would never vote for him. Newt needs to FOAD. And if that shitstain Fuckabee is the nominee, I'll go door to door for his opponent, even if it's the jug-eared Kenyan cocksucker.
Fuck the MSM. Bolton/Palin 2012 - the 'Stache and the Bush.
Posted by: Christopher at December 28, 2010 09:55 AM (zF6Iw)
One of my main issues with him, amongst many, is that foreign policy will come roaring back with a vengeance next term and he simply is not up to snuff.
Really? I always worried about him as a *domestic* policy RINO squish. When it came to dealing with tin-horn tyrants like Hugo Chavez, I pictured him in a better light.
Prediction: Latin America will again be a headache in 2013. And the Commiecrats will fellate communist cock, just as they did there in the 1980's.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 09:56 AM (ujg0T)
You broke my heart, Fred. You broke my heart.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 09:56 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: Jax Teller at December 28, 2010 09:56 AM (pOC9r)
That Reagan guy was in a movie with a monkey. He's not dignified enough to be President!
That Reagan guy had been in politics for some 40 years prior to winning in 1980. That Reagan guy completed his terms as governor. That Reagan guy was head of the screen actors guild when it was under assault from communists, and kept it from falling to them.That Reagan almost unseated a sitting president in the 1976 primary.
Please god let's stop with the Reagan comparisons. Sarah Palin has almost nothing in common with Reagan when it comes to their paths, or in her case potential path, to the presidency.
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 09:56 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 09:58 AM (xRZ9q)
Kinda like comparing a Velvet Elvis to the Sistine Chapel or something.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 09:58 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: Follower of Cthulhu, former republican at December 28, 2010 10:00 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:00 AM (mEyVv)
Then come out swinging when she has some national-level accomplishments.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:01 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:01 AM (mEyVv)
Palin is more like Charlamagne.
I offer no real proof as to whether or not this comparison is apt, but it should be accepted as accurate.
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 10:02 AM (wuv1c)
Never understood what people see in Huckaberry, he is a goofy, goony, used car salesman; a culty, preacher kinda guy. You think Barky is a dork, 4 years of Huckerbee will make obumbles look like Shaft...one bad mutha, thats what I'm talkin bout!
Posted by: dananjcon at December 28, 2010 10:02 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 10:03 AM (xRZ9q)
also, i would like to point out that if Sarah Palin looked like Margaret Thatcher, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Her looks play a major role in her "likeability"
Posted by: Ben at December 28, 2010 10:03 AM (wuv1c)
We also have to remember that her campaign wouldn't have that collection of McCain fucksticks stabbing her in the back to get Obama elected.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:04 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 10:04 AM (XXyJt)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:04 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:05 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 01:58 PM (xRZ9q)
Reagan would be more man and more president than Zero if his brain was crawling with worms and he was only conscious 2 hours a day.
Posted by: maddogg at December 28, 2010 10:06 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 28, 2010 10:06 AM (tJjm/)
Right - so the same Media f*cksticks who crammed McMaverick down our throats in 2008 are now trying to force-feed us Huckleberry. Swell. But hey, if Republicans are fool enough to nominate The Media's Chosen Candidate again it's all the more reason for me to feel awesome about throwing the GOP under the bus after the fiasco known as The Lame Duck SessionTM.
Posted by: DocJ at December 28, 2010 10:06 AM (dt6br)
Seriously, Palin would be awesome as RNC chair.
--Cheerleading
--Fund-Raising
--Providing a coherent narrative
--Organizing
These are proven Palin strengths, regardless of what the lamestream media says.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 10:06 AM (ujg0T)
Really? I always worried about him as a *domestic* policy RINO squish. When it came to dealing with tin-horn tyrants like Hugo Chavez, I pictured him in a better light.
Prediction: Latin America will again be a headache in 2013. And the Commiecrats will fellate communist cock, just as they did there in the 1980's.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 01:56 PM (ujg0T)
Read his "foreign policy" essay, if it can even be called that with scare quotes, in Foreign Policy Magazine. I care about the his weakness with domestic issues also but foreign policy is my main focus and I recall that experience being, well, wrenching. Other than some America should be the world's "brother's keeper" pablum I don't recall him saying too much else, which is part of the problem. He may have changed his tune lately, but I think the current president shows how much that is worth.
Did the "commiecrats" ever stop doing that btw?
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 10:06 AM (SN4+f)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2010 10:07 AM (xRZ9q)
By the way, Thatcher was kind of pretty when she was young. Most women tend to get less so as they age. That's just the way it is.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:07 AM (mEyVv)
He wanted to run against Kerry, but he knew he was out-gunned when they selected Obama.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:07 AM (vn4ta)
As badly as I hate to say it, there are few if any of the 'leading' Republicans that I could find myself supporting with any enthusiasm.
I will say without hesitation though that if we let the MSM anoint the Huckster the GOP will have to win the White House without my vote. I refuse to vote for the Republican Dukakis.
Posted by: kaz at December 28, 2010 10:08 AM (ZjDcX)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 10:08 AM (XXyJt)
Right - so the same Media f*cksticks who crammed McMaverick down our throats in 2008 are now trying to force-feed us Huckleberry. Swell. But hey, if Republicans are fool enough to nominate The Media's Chosen Candidate again it's all the more reason for me to feel awesome about throwing the GOP under the bus after the fiasco known as The Lame Duck SessionTM.
The media fucksticks are a given. If we don't change the GOP primary process--a front-loaded, winner take all state by state, and too rapid primary system--we run the risk of getting another crappy candidate.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 10:08 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:09 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 28, 2010 10:09 AM (tJjm/)
Seriously, Palin would be awesome as RNC chair.
--Cheerleading
--Fund-Raising
--Providing a coherent narrative
--Organizing
--Annual RNC Swimsuit Calendar
Eat your heart out, Steele.
Posted by: Cicero at December 28, 2010 10:09 AM (QKKT0)
And when Sarah brings the kind of business-friendly tax policy to the table that she will, corporations will get on board.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:10 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 02:07 PM (mEyVv)
Some women, maybe.
Posted by: Helen Thomas at December 28, 2010 10:11 AM (QKKT0)
I agree with you 100%. When we were having the primaries in Indiana, some older man (older than ME, even) called me and said that Rokita (who ultimately won) had gotten the support of Huckabee, and "Wasn't that just wonderful?"
I told him that I would support Rokita DESPITE Huckabee's endorsement.
Left him speechless.
I notice how the press is pretty much leaving Huckabee alone. They are hoping we fall for this and nominate him, after which they will drag out his creepy dog-abusing son, the weirdo rest of the family, his pardoning the guy who went on to molest other kids, his anti-Catholicsm and anti-Mormonism, etc. etc.
The press elevates whoever they think they can destroy in the general.
By the way, he sure has a fancy house in Arkansas, and he built it BEFORE landing that contract with Fox. I guess it was paid for with his diet book. (And I still think he had stomach-stapling surgery.)
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 28, 2010 10:11 AM (Fo83G)
Sarah couldn't have done wha she has done if she wasn't smarter than 99.99% of liberals.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:12 AM (vn4ta)
Let's not kid ourselves here, 8 years as governor of one of the largest states (I know CA overtook NY around that time, not sure exactly when) kicks the heck out of several years as a small town mayor, head of an oil commission, and a couple years as governor. Not to mention Reagan had decades of many other political activities.
Though yes I fully agree any executive experience beats being a backbench legislator who either votes present or campaigns for higher office.
187 That Palin girl, also, by the way, almost made John McCain a viable candidate in 2008. If he'd bothered to show up, they might even have won.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 02:04 PM (mEyVv)
Who was still defeated by a lightweight who won by the same method you're given Palin credit for. Do we really want campaigns to become simply who's the most popular and dreamy candidate?
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 10:13 AM (SN4+f)
Christie/Palin
Bolton/Palin
Christie/Palin
Just repeat... any order....
Well, that and Pence/Palin might work...
But, my dreams are made of...
Christie/Palin Christie/Palin Christie/Palin
Posted by: Mr Wolf at December 28, 2010 10:13 AM (hbv0S)
Did the "commiecrats" ever stop doing that btw?
Well, the Sandinistas (whome they were blow jobbing) up and died on them, but your point is taken.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 10:13 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 10:14 AM (XXyJt)
Huck is a known, true Christian. Thus the assumption (among those who only know about his faith) is that Huck's instincts are right. When most politicians are only "stage Christians," Huck has a complete lock on all evangelicals who only know two or three things about the candidates. If we had another devout Christian on the primary table (looking at Jindal), the evangelical vote would be watered down and the fiscal cons might - for once - get to choose the nominee.
Posted by: wooga at December 28, 2010 10:15 AM (2p0e3)
And I would accept either Salma or zombie-Friedrich for the Hayek slot.
Posted by: wooga at December 28, 2010 10:18 AM (2p0e3)
I am from Indiana. Quayle is a nice man but after I read his book (which I still have so I can check on his statements) I am convinced he is too clueless to run.
Besides, every time he opens his mouth he demonstrates that he is not keeping up with current thinking. He acts like the Senate is the way it was in the 1980's. As we all know, the Marxist wing of the democrats is in control now, and "reaching across the aisle" isn't possible, unless you are willing to have your arm gnawed off.
So, no. Quayle needs to stay on the golf course in Arizona.
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 28, 2010 10:18 AM (Fo83G)
He acts like the Senate is the way it was in the 1980's.
In a way the Senate *is* like it was in the 1970's. Harry Reid as a latter day Frank Church.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 28, 2010 10:20 AM (ujg0T)
I don't know what you're talking about. First of all, elections are popularity contests, to a large degree, so that can't be dismissed out of hand. And second, where have I said anything about Palin's dreaminess? I just don't think she should be dismissed yet.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:21 AM (mEyVv)
Her favorability would go up among the bitter distaff bloc, I think, so it would probably be a wash.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 28, 2010 10:22 AM (S5YRY)
So there is that. Which is nice.
Posted by: sifty at December 28, 2010 10:24 AM (vn4ta)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at December 28, 2010 10:25 AM (YmPwQ)
I don't know what you're talking about. First of all, elections are popularity contests, to a large degree, so that can't be dismissed out of hand. And second, where have I said anything about Palin's dreaminess? I just don't think she should be dismissed yet.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 02:21 PM (mEyVv)
So then the game is to trade inexperienced lightweights back and forth? Of course popularity is a major role in any election, the question is whether it comes first (such as with Obama and to a lesser but still real extent Palin) or whether it is to follow experience and proven ability. Like it or not, to most Americans all Palin has proven she is able to do is quit the biggest executive position she's had. I understand why she did it, most Americans don't, won't bother to, and wouldn't have the opportunity given their sources of news and natural laziness to do it.
As for dreamy, I didn't like that word but settled. What I meant with it was what I explained above basically since I know popularity has a role it's a question of why.
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 10:28 AM (SN4+f)
Does Romney's handsomeness disqualify him, or is it a plus?
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:29 AM (mEyVv)
No, of course not, jarod, but I disagree with your assessment that Palin is a lightweight.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 10:31 AM (mEyVv)
She's right on all the issues - she called AGW "snake oil science" when calling AGW "snake oil science" wasn't cool. She's solid on 2nd Amendment issues, solid on limited government and lower taxes. Palin has endorsed Ryan's "RoadMap", and she was right as hell on Obamacare's "death panels".
The 2012 GOP possibilities are waiting for her decision. So is the rest of the world.
Posted by: mrp at December 28, 2010 10:33 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: kansas at December 28, 2010 10:33 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 10:38 AM (XXyJt)
Palin MAYBE (Unlikely) Pence MAYBE Jindal MAYBE (Unlikely) Rubio MAYBE (Unlikely) Thune YES
Thune/Rubio looks good right now, or someone with executive experience on the ticket. Susana Martinez just won the NM gubernatorial race, but she is as new as Rubio and Palin supporters would love her.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 10:41 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 10:42 AM (mHQ7T)
No, of course not, jarod, but I disagree with your assessment that Palin is a lightweight.
Posted by: Kensington at December 28, 2010 02:31 PM (mEyVv)
Clearly we're in disagreement. Though again I don't think she's as much a lightweight as our current president, there are levels and all. I think she has potential but she's going to need some time and efforts at something more serious than reality TV and twitter.
I do not agree. The quitter meme will amount to nothing. Palin will crush it right at the beginning.
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 02:38 PM (XXyJt)
You underestimate the power of the MSM, and also the apathy and lack of curiosity in the large, if not vast, majority of Americans. For most the meme has been set.
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 10:44 AM (SN4+f)
Posted by: Gran at December 28, 2010 10:45 AM (xmjMj)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2010 02:38 PM (XXyJt)
The quitter meme is not enough to do Palin in, but she starts with a handicap. That she's a political dynamo balances things out, but you have to think about the case the GOP is going to make against Obama. How would Palin embody that argument enough to convince independents?
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 10:45 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 02:41 PM (mHQ7T)
Another thing, can we please stop promoting people to higher office 2, or even 4, flipping years after their first election to a lower office.
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 10:47 AM (SN4+f)
Obama is already making a strong argument against himself with his demonstrable incompetence.
Posted by: Gran at December 28, 2010 10:48 AM (xmjMj)
But then there are people who say she's only interested in being a movement leader and making a fortune. First woman VP guarantees book sales and sets her up for a run in 2020. She has quite a following, so she would be offered a VP spot for the right candidate. She'd take it, if she lost the primary.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 10:49 AM (mHQ7T)
CNN is not a legitimate pollster. Neither is ABC, NBC, CBS, FNC, WSJ, WaPo, or any media poll for that matter. They're all laughable, demonstrably inaccurate crap. They paid Opinion Dynamics for the result they wanted.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 28, 2010 10:50 AM (IoUF1)
I disagree -- after the experience she had in '08 with the six-figure wardrobe, the stifling of any commentary on Rev. Wright, etc., all of which were out of her hands, she'd be foolish to put herself in a position where she can be mismanaged like that again.
Posted by: Gran at December 28, 2010 10:54 AM (xmjMj)
Another thing, can we please stop promoting people to higher office 2, or even 4, flipping years after their first election to a lower office.
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 02:47 PM (SN4+f)
Thune won three House elections and beat Daschle for his Senate seat. Rubio served as a City Commissioner for West Miami and was Speaker of the State House in FL. Both have comparable resumes to Obama in 2008. Martinez has been a DA for a decade, similar experience to Christie, who is often brought up as a possibility.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 10:55 AM (mHQ7T)
If Palin was still Governor, you'd have a point. Her career is largely fueled by speculation about her running in 2012. After that, then what?
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 10:57 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Gran at December 28, 2010 02:48 PM (xmjMj)
In 2008, it was not so much Bush personally, but war demagoguery and the economic crisis that made Bush a weak incumbent. (McCain was such a bad candidate, that he failed to define himself, so Obama ran against Bush.) But the media will always be in the tank for Obama, so who the GOP candidate is matters very much.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 11:00 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 28, 2010 11:00 AM (xJVlJ)
I cannot say the same about Mitt, Huck, or Newt.
Posted by: pam at December 28, 2010 11:02 AM (uDwml)
Thune won three House elections and beat Daschle for his Senate seat. Rubio served as a City Commissioner for West Miami and was Speaker of the State House in FL. Both have comparable resumes to Obama in 2008. Martinez has been a DA for a decade, similar experience to Christie, who is often brought up as a possibility.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 02:55 PM (mHQ7T)
Clearly I wasn't referring to Thune. I like him though would prefer someone who could solidify a big swing state and not a +30 R state. Why did Rubio run for Senate in 2010? So he could immediately start campaigning for the Presidency? I seriously think candidates should be barred legally for running for another office until their term would have ended (assuming they quit).
Yes you're right, they are roughly comparable to the most inexperienced lightweight president we've ever elected in experience. I'm sure you had no issue with that regarding Obama right (if you didn't, ok then, we'll just disagree)? Yes I also the Democrats do it, but how well did that argument work with your mother as a kid? Yeah, that's where that argument should stay.
Posted by: jarod at December 28, 2010 11:03 AM (SN4+f)
So, the 2012 Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, because the case can be made based on last time's results that it's either one's "turn". Forget Sarahcuda, Thune, Daniels, Pawlenty, Pence, Gingrich, whomever. I'd go farther and predict that the '12 ticket will be both of them in whatever order; after all, Romney's strengths (economic policy, competency) and weaknesses (social/moral issues) are the mirror opposites of Huckabee's. Ditto geographic/sectional balance as well (FWIW). If I had to guess, I'd say it'll be Huckabee-Romney because of RomneyCare.
No tea party revolt can change it. It is graven in stone.
Mark this date for the "I told you so"s to come.
Posted by: JASmius at December 28, 2010 11:07 AM (VS0P/)
I had many problems with Obama's resume in 2008, and my point is that Thune and Rubio make him still look like a lightweight. Obviously, Rubio has a lot of work to do to run for President. He's electable, and Republicans could conceivably nominate him, though. With Palin on the 2008 ticket, Republicans didn't make too much hay about Obama's experience. He looked "cool and even-tempered" after McCain suspended his campaign during the financial crisis and opposed the House GOP on TARP, missing a golden opportunity to distance himself from the Bush administration. My problem with Obama was that he had too much of the wrong kind of experience (but the MFM will not let you make the case for corruption), and not enough to do what he promised and fix the very big problems that faced our country. All he has done is create new problems for us with his insane ideology. But the best way to present that argument is with a stark, visual counterpoint. Thune is taller than Obama, as good-looking, better at speaking on policy (an actual wonk) and has heartland midwestern charm, as well as gravitas. Obama looks more like an empty suit when you stand him next to someone who fills one out nicely. Palin is OK, but she dropped the ball on reassuring voters she is up to the task at this last stage.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 11:14 AM (mHQ7T)
We KNOW three things for sure:
1)Obama will win re-election.
2)Romney will be our nominee.
3)The ballot box cannot save us...sacking DC is the only real decision option left now, and we must face this fact sooner or later.
Posted by: pam at December 28, 2010 11:17 AM (uDwml)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 11:20 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: pam at December 28, 2010 03:17 PM (uDwml)
Are you serious?
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 11:21 AM (mHQ7T)
Don't agree with this one, either. The media can blow sunshine up the public's collective ass for only so long when it comes to the economy, the debt, the wars, etc.
Posted by: Gran at December 28, 2010 11:24 AM (xmjMj)
I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Huckabee.
Huckabee is NOT what the times require. It was the free-spending social cons that gave conservatism a bad name, and ripped from the republicans the issue of fiscal sanity for what should have been 20 years (but, thanks to Obama, was only 2).
Posted by: headhunt23 at December 28, 2010 11:42 AM (Q08aV)
Obama’s Gallup approval rating reached 49% late last week — the highest it had been since July — but it had already been “stuck” at about 45 or 46% several months ahead of the midterms and had not been declining. After all the tea party protests in 2009, Republicans only captured the House, not the Senate, which shows you that the public is still willing to give Obama and the Democrats the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 12:00 PM (mHQ7T)
Same here. There are only two candidates I would vote against, and they are Romney and Certain Fucking Doomabee.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 12:03 PM (mHQ7T)
Regardless of Palin's poll numbers at this moment, for me.....I would trust her decision making in foreign and domestic issues, she has proven that she will fight those decisions, and I trust that she knows America and its people like the back of her hand.
I cannot say the same about Mitt, Huck, or Newt.
Except she hasn't shown that her decision making skills are terribly sound. Christine O'Donnell? Reality TV?
Sorry, but she's just not ready. Maybe there will come a time in which she is, but that won't be 2012. I'm glad that most other Republicans recognize this as well, and hope polls like this lead her to announce soon that she won't be running. Instead she should focus on doing what she does well, which is to rally the base.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 28, 2010 12:07 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: mjhlaw at December 28, 2010 12:11 PM (YQ4mh)
Getting a great start here, folks.
Posted by: Adjoran at December 28, 2010 12:24 PM (VfmLu)
Like most Republicans, I want Obama defunded and repealed. That means Romney is out of the question. Huckabee is soft on crime, and I will not vote for a fat evangelical populist. 2008 was more of those two than I could take. It's embarrassing they're even being mentioned.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 12:39 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 28, 2010 12:40 PM (mHQ7T)
Huckabee?
WTF?
Democrats equals the evil party, Republican's equal the stupid party ~Kim Du Toit~
Posted by: HEP-T at December 28, 2010 12:45 PM (AAjMU)
Posted by: nohammernosickl at December 28, 2010 01:39 PM (Z/zYN)
Huckabee has no appeal to anyone except a few old farts who haven't realized that Crossfire is never going to come on CNN again no matter how long they wait. By definition, anyone on the right still watching CNN has some sort of mental problem that should preclude them from being allowed to vote. If they can't figure out how to use the gd tv remote to turn the channel there is zero chance they can figure out a voting machine anyway.
Anyone who can balance a checkbook, has never created a giant entitlement program and never let a murderer go because an invisible being told him to will beat the shit out of Obama. It really is that simple... now let's watch the Pubbies fuck it up.
Posted by: Polybius at December 28, 2010 03:06 PM (sfNbl)
Posted by: asics shoes at December 28, 2010 10:51 PM (Uw8og)
Posted by: Chris in Va at December 29, 2010 03:49 AM (oj52M)
Palin's endorsement of COD, and the defeat of Rino Castle was an excellent outcome, as would COD's votes in the Senate.
And why isn't Palin allowed to participate in our entertainment culture? Like every liberal? Why are we proud of ceding the culture to left? Along with academia and the entire MSM?
How has this helped us as a political party? Are we somehow beneath, or too good to participate?
And why is every other Republican running allowed to make millions for their run, and not Palin?
Posted by: pam at December 29, 2010 10:00 AM (uDwml)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.213 seconds, 387 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: NEW THREAD! at December 28, 2010 08:49 AM (6DDE+)