THX_1138 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 she's the worst thing that has happened to GOP ah no... that would be ronald reagan. his disasterous presidency created a mirage that all subsequent GOP leaders aim to emulate.
yoda Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 She won't be missed ... She will be back for the 2012 cycle. Hopefully she will get kicked so badly that we won't have to see her any place other than fox news.
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 She will be back for the 2012 cycle. Hopefully she will get kicked so badly that we won't have to see her any place other than fox news. or cinemax...
graphic23 Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 I think personal lives are fair game. Nothing is off limits. These politicians parade their hallmark greeting cardesque families on television when promoting their stance on 'family values', and 'core american beliefs', or even when swiftboating their opposition for choices in personal life, then why must these picture perfect families not be subjected to a scrutiny beyond photo shoots? If a politician talks about tougher punishments for drug peddlers or cutting back funding for drug awareness programs that are not limited to mere abstinence, or when they protest needle exchange programs... if details surface that this very individual himself or one of his family members suffered a drug addiction, then their hypocrisy should be broadcasted, ridiculed and made grounds for a massive humiliation campaign! Similarly, when politicians choose to ridicule another for his adulterous affairs, if the fact surfaces that they themselves were dogging (in every sense of the word) their early twenties secretary, then that politicians' personal life is fair game. Let me put it this way: when one applies to a hospital seeking employment as a doctor, a complete background check, a drug test, and a psychiatric evaluation is in order. Why must the politicians not be vetted accordingly? I hope you don't take offense with this post because I don't intend to offend you. But my point is this: assume you are divorced with your wife. You have a 7 year old son. And you are running for the office of senator in Illinois. The media can vet you when it is related to the policies you are for. Where the **** is the need for you to broadcast about how you asked your then fiancee to have sex in public in some European nation? In case you think I'm making this up, I'm not. And I don't know about you but I certainly don't think that is related to anything Republican Jack Ryan was debating in the race. When both his ex-wife and himself repeatedly requested for these not be released because their son's life would be affected, and considering how he offered to back away, there was no ****ing reason this needed to be released in newspapers. I stand by my point, and your analogy with the doctor is invalid in this case.
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 I hope you don't take offense with this post because I don't intend to offend you. But my point is this: assume you are divorced with your wife. You have a 7 year old son. And you are running for the office of senator in Illinois. The media can vet you when it is related to the policies you are for. Where the **** is the need for you to broadcast about how you asked your then fiancee to have sex in public in some European nation? In case you think I'm making this up, I'm not. And I don't know about you but I certainly don't think that is related to anything Republican Jack Ryan was debating in the race. When both his ex-wife and himself repeatedly requested for these not be released because their son's life would be affected, and considering how he offered to back away, there was no ****ing reason this needed to be released in newspapers. I stand by my point, and your analogy with the doctor is invalid in this case. actually jack ryan (his wife, jeri ryan who btw is totally hot), lost his seat for more than just the disastrous details of his divorce, which he attempted to keep concealed not because it would hurt his seven year old child, but because of its adverse effect on his reelection campaign (eventually his opponent would run unopposed and be appointed as senator, and i know you know who that is). and as much as i know, jeri ryan was the one who disclosed the sordid details of their marriage, and how he coerced her to engage in sexual acts with others, something she refused or consented to after much reluctance. and he did not drop out of race as a concession that his divorce's gory details be kept off the front page, he dropped out when the details became public, his popularity plunged and he found himself alienated everyone including members of the republican party. here is the thing: if one is going to stand on a pedestal built upon policies that govern how people ought to live their lives, then one must live up to those standards himself/herself. thus, if jack ryan stood on a pedestal upon which he and his wife were the hottest thing in town and adorned page 3, i.e. a rather glamorous couple very much in the public eye, then when things start going south, one cannot suddenly expect anonymity. if we want our successes applauded on the front pages, we ought to be prepared to face the music when our debacles are similarly exposed. on the other hand, i would argue that while john kerry rarely ever claimed to be an advocate of family values, his personal marital details were not made the talk of the town. however, if tomorrow karl rove is found out to be cheating on his wife, i want the details of the fallout splashed all over. after all, the architect of some of the most paralyzing and polarizing public policies governing families must be held accountable. true i sound rather partisan here, but the hypocrisy is more prominent from one side of the table than the other.
Brainfade Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted without comment: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/sarah.palin.fbi/index.html Excerpt: The FBI, in a rare response to rampant rumors on the Internet, said it is not investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on public corruption charges. "Normally, we don't confirm or deny those kind of allegations out there. But, by not doing so, it just casts her in a very bad light," said FBI Special Agent Eric Gonzalez, who confirmed for CNN the statement he made to the Anchorage Daily News. "There is just no truth to those rumors out there in the blogosphere." Gonzalez told The Los Angeles Times that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry. The speculation began almost immediately after Palin's unexpected announcement on Friday that she would step down as Alaska's chief executive with 18 months left in her term."
THX_1138 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 its becoming rather evident that her decision was not politically motivated but rather personal. i believe the election campaign and its subsequent fall out has taken a toll on her family and she is abdicating the governorship to attend to her family. a decision that is most commendable.
ludhianvi Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Palin know about full court press... and she know when to pass the ball..... I am impressed
Texy Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 so now she has almost 3 years to raise campaign money for her shopping spree at Saks
Ram Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Don’t underestimate her, she’s still the darling of the Republican faithful. Agreed, she was horrible as the John McCain’s Vice-Presidential ticket, but who in her position would not have been? She was the governor of a terribly low-profile state and for her to be thrust into the world-wide media glare was not fair to her. I am sure she herself would accept that she wasn’t ready for the job, but she still accepted it but McCain knew that he had to take a big risk somewhere, if he stood a chance against Obama. He knew that he had to do something dramatic to energize the republican base and he took a punt on Palin. It didn’t work for sure, but that’s past. Now, Palin knows what it means to run in a (Vice) Presidential race. She knows what sort of questions will be asked. More importantly, she knows what answers to give to those questions. She’s obviously a very talented, intelligent, strong-willed women. Her biggest drawback was her relative inexperience and ignorance of important foreign policy and security issues. Now, she has 4 years to bone-up on those. I am sure she will and she’ll be back. And when she comes back, she’s not going to be just this ‘maverick hockey mom who likes to talk to Joe the plumber and Chuck the school-teacher’, she’ll look more Presidential, more suave and most importantly, more of a celebrity and less of a common-place women (which she tried to portray this time.). The way things are going with Obama, She’s the Republican party’s biggest hope in the next Presidential race. I don’t see anyone else in the GoP who seems even remotely capable of taking on Obama.
punjabi_khota Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Don’t underestimate her, she’s still the darling of the Republican faithful. Agreed, she was horrible as the John McCain’s Vice-Presidential ticket, but who in her position would not have been? She was the governor of a terribly low-profile state and for her to be thrust into the world-wide media glare was not fair to her. I am sure she herself would accept that she wasn’t ready for the job, but she still accepted it but McCain knew that he had to take a big risk somewhere, if he stood a chance against Obama. He knew that he had to do something dramatic to energize the republican base and he took a punt on Palin. It didn’t work for sure, but that’s past. Now, Palin knows what it means to run in a (Vice) Presidential race. She knows what sort of questions will be asked. More importantly, she knows what answers to give to those questions. She’s obviously a very talented, intelligent, strong-willed women. Her biggest drawback was her relative inexperience and ignorance of important foreign policy and security issues. Now, she has 4 years to bone-up on those. I am sure she will and she’ll be back. And when she comes back, she’s not going to be just this ‘maverick hockey mom who likes to talk to Joe the plumber and Chuck the school-teacher’, she’ll look more Presidential, more suave and most importantly, more of a celebrity and less of a common-place women (which she tried to portray this time.). The way things are going with Obama, She’s the Republican party’s biggest hope in the next Presidential race. I don’t see anyone else in the GoP who seems even remotely capable of taking on Obama. From your response, it seems like you think Republican base is all you need to win an election. Which is obviously not true. I cannot see any self respecting educated centrist, or center right citizen of US voting for the dumbass that is Palin. And there are way more of those in America than stupid gun totters and bible thumpers. She cannot win shyte. Republican gun totting base is only going to take her so far. She ain't winning anything. And I don't know from where did you get the notion that she is intelligent. It would be shame if she even came close to winning. And if GOP does put her up as the presidential candidate, that would probably the end of GOP as we know it.
Ram Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 From your response, it seems like you think Republican base is all you need to win an election. Which is obviously not true. I cannot see any self respecting educated right, or center right citizen of US voting for the dumbass that is Palin. And there are way more of those in America than stupid gun totters and bible thumpers. She cannot win shyte. Republican gun totting base is only going to take her so far. She ain't winning anything. Please copy paste the section in my earlier post, where I suggest (or seem to suggest) that a republican base is all you need to win an election.
punjabi_khota Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Please copy paste the section in my earlier post' date=' where I suggest (or seem to suggest) that a republican base is all you need to win an election.[/quote'] Who are the "republican faithful" you talk about that she is darling of? She is the darling of only those gun-totters hill-billies and all those rallies prove it. Are you saying she is or will be in 4 years, capable of attracting votes from non-"base republicans" ? Give me one reason why a educated, middle class (or better) Republican with a brain would vote for that dumbass in the nomination race ?
Ram Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Who are the "republican faithful" you talk about that she is darling of? She is the darling of only those gun-totters hill-billies and all those rallies prove it. Are you saying she is or will be in 4 years, capable of attracting votes from non-"base republicans" ? Give me one reason why a educated, middle class (or better) Republican with a brain would vote for that dumbass in the nomination race ? I think you have not answered my question. I ask again - 'Where in my post, do I suggest or seem to suggest that Republican support alone is enough for her to win'?
Macj Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Who are the "republican faithful" you talk about that she is darling of? She is the darling of only those gun-totters hill-billies and all those rallies prove it. Are you saying she is or will be in 4 years, capable of attracting votes from non-"base republicans" ? Give me one reason why a educated, middle class (or better) Republican with a brain would vote for that dumbass in the nomination race ? Palin has been 'found out', she will lose if she ever stands. This is the classical case of 'ridicule by association' of all Republican minded individuals as being stupid just because Palin is stupid. This sort of peddling by supposedly fair minded posters is intellectually dishonest.(directed at the guy you replied to)
punjabi_khota Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 I think you have not answered my question. I ask again - 'Where in my post, do I suggest or seem to suggest that Republican support alone is enough for her to win'? Debating for the sake of debating, are we ? If you think the base support is not enough, then tell me how do you think she is gonna win the non-base votes ? By reading a newspaper ? or being more suave ? You think her hillbilly ass will convince the businessmen and such that form the core of republican funding ?
punjabi_khota Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Palin has been 'found out'' date= she will lose if she ever stands. This is the classical case of 'ridicule by association' of all Republican minded individuals as being stupid just because Palin is stupid. This sort of peddling by supposedly fair minded posters is intellectually dishonest.(directed at the guy you replied to) Exactly. And thats the only difference between her and GW. He was elected (if you ignore the minor counting mistakes) in 2000 because no one knew he was so goddamn stupid. In 04, it was the war hype that took him home.
Ram Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Debating for the sake of debating' date=' are we ? If you think the base support is not enough, then tell me how do you think she is gonna win the non-base votes ?[/quote'] Lol, I know we’re dilly-dallying around but I am persisting because I hate it when people put words in my mouth. And worse, you have done it AGAIN, in your previous post. Let me make myself clear – No 1 - Nowhere in my post did I imply that Republican support is enough for Palin to win. No 2 – Nowhere in my post did I imply that EVEN if she gets the support of all Republicans, she will win (which you seem to suggest I said so, in your previous post). If you read my post carefully again, you’ll understand that this is the gist of what I am trying to say – No 1 – Palin is capable of energizing the Republican base more than any other R politician. And this was evident in the previous election. No 2 – She was terribly inexperienced, under-prepared and under-cooked the last when she ran. No surprises there, she was plucked out of obscurity and thrown into the limelight. No 3 – She now has plenty of time to prepare herself better and mount a more meaningful challenge to Obama in the next election. (Though, even that might not be enough to defeat him)
punjabi_khota Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Lol, I know we’re dilly-dallying around but I am persisting because I hate it when people put words in my mouth. And worse, you have done it AGAIN, in your previous post. Let me make myself clear – No 1 - Nowhere in my post did I imply that Republican support is enough for Palin to win. No 2 – Nowhere in my post did I imply that EVEN if she gets the support of all Republicans, she will win (which you seem to suggest I said so, in your previous post). If you read my post carefully again, you’ll understand that this is the gist of what I am trying to say – No 1 – Palin is capable of energizing the Republican base more than any other R politician. And this was evident in the previous election. No 2 – She was terribly inexperienced, under-prepared and under-cooked the last when she ran. No surprises there, she was plucked out of obscurity and thrown into the limelight. No 3 – She now has plenty of time to prepare herself better and mount a more meaningful challenge to Obama in the next election. (Though, even that might not be enough to defeat him) For all your summaries, you still haven't given a single solid reason to support your claim in the first post: You said :"She’s the Republican party’s biggest hope in the next Presidential race" The reason so far I see in your posts is : " Palin is capable of energizing the Republican base more than any other R politician. And this was evident in the previous election. That and the fact that she will be better prepared, well read etc etc" And thats exactly what I am countering. No way in hell is she gonna convince the non-base republicans and hence she will NO way be the biggest hope of GOP. Thats all.
Recommended Posts