Libs were right about Palin. Epic Fail

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, how many Repub/cons here agree with Frank that Sarah Palin is currently the LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY??

DUMBFUCK POST ALERT.

Hint: Michael Steele is the head of the RNC, Not Palin. It has been in the news a bit.

 

[Mike458877]

I've seen the light. It was an Epic Fail. It sucks when the Leader of a Party campaigns for Candidates who lose decisively.

So, you're admitting that Sarah Palin is the "leader" of the Republican party?



I really hope so, that's one way to shoot yourselves in the foot!

ahuh .... Given the performance of the democrats, at this rate Mickey Mouse could lead the republican party and wipe the floor with them.

Instead of worrying so much about a woman who does not hold a national position, you might smarten up and focus on your own back yard. The weeds are over running it!

Mike

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, what do you expect.. libtards love abortion but hate the death penalty. Confused? YA THINK???

 

[ayiakri]

I dare say that your continued ad hominems make your credibility in this thread and your other thread zero at this point.

Yes, and I'm so concerned with your views on my credibility after you earlier posts on this this thread, LOL.

On the plus side, I guess that means I can reply to every one of your ad hominem arguments with a reply of the same caliber, and not worry about offending, since I've lost all credibility in your eyes!

Now excuse me, I have to go cry in my soup !!! LMAO

 

[concept]

I've seen the light. It was an Epic Fail. It sucks when the Leader of a Party campaigns for Candidates who lose decisively.

So, you're admitting that Sarah Palin is the "leader" of the Republican party?



I really hope so, that's one way to shoot yourselves in the foot!

Hooked on phonics is your friend.

 

[Si modo]

I've seen the light. It was an Epic Fail. It sucks when the Leader of a Party campaigns for Candidates who lose decisively.

So, you're admitting that Sarah Palin is the "leader" of the Republican party?



I really hope so, that's one way to shoot yourselves in the foot!

ahuh .... Given the performance of the democrats, at this rate Mickey Mouse could lead the republican party and wipe the floor with them.

Instead of worrying so much about a woman who does not hold a national position, you might smarten up and focus on your own back yard. The weeds are over running it!

Mike

Yup. We could sum up DNC/RNC politics with a slogan from both of them: "My quality is irrelevant; I just need to amplify the other's fuck ups".

 

[del]

So, how many Repub/cons here agree with Frank that Sarah Palin is currently the LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY??

DUMBFUCK POST ALERT.

Hint: Michael Steele is the head of the RNC, Not Palin. It has been in the news a bit.

tell frank.

 

[Si modo]

I dare say that your continued ad hominems make your credibility in this thread and your other thread zero at this point.

Yes, and I'm so concerned with your views on my credibility after you earlier posts on this this thread, LOL.

On the plus side, I guess that means I can reply to every one of your ad hominem arguments with a reply of the same caliber, and not worry about offending, since I've lost all credibility in your eyes!

Now excuse me, I have to go cry in my soup !!! LMAO

Dismissible all around. And to think I took you seriously in the other thread. Good to know.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

But what I don't understand more is the mentality of liberals who wish that the GOP self destructs. I see no advantage to a one-party system.

Si Modo,

I'm speaking to the "Conservatives" (I use the term lightly) that seem to be obsessed with Sarah as well as the Liberals that seem to be obsessed with her too. I do not for a minute think that all Conservatives support Sarah any more than all Liberals support HRC.

I picked out this part of your quote though for a reason. I too do not see an advantage to a one party system. In fact, the optimal outcome for me in 2010 would be a loss of the Philibuster proof majority in the Senate and/or a loss of House control. I think our system functions best when the leadership of the House, Senate, and Presidency are in as many different political parties as possible. I no more trust Democrats with one party rule than Republicans.

 

[Dr.House]

So, how many Repub/cons here agree with Frank that Sarah Palin is currently the LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY??

I thought you flaming libroids anointed Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party?

Maybe you libroids can have a special runoff election to determine who you libroids want to declare the "Leader of the Republican Party".... You seem like such a confused bunch of individuals...

Frank is the one who made her leader of the Republican party. I simply asked who agreed with him.

Answer the question.

Where did Frank anoint her the Leader? Must have been some other thread...

Link please....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

She will never have Hilary's laugh or voice, thank God.

She's annoying in her own way. I find her pretty shrill.

 

[Si modo]

But what I don't understand more is the mentality of liberals who wish that the GOP self destructs. I see no advantage to a one-party system.

Si Modo,

I'm speaking to the "Conservatives" (I use the term lightly) that seem to be obsessed with Sarah as well as the Liberals that seem to be obsessed with her too. I do not for a minute think that all Conservatives support Sarah any more than all Liberals support HRC. ....

Cool. I suspected as much, too; but I'm glad you confirmed it.

.... I picked out this part of your quote though for a reason. I too do not see an advantage to a one party system. In fact, the optimal outcome for me in 2010 would be a loss of the Philibuster proof majority in the Senate and/or a loss of House control. I think our system functions best when the leadership of the House, Senate, and Presidency are in as many different political parties as possible. I no more trust Democrats with one party rule than Republicans.

You and I are on the same page.

edit: Let me expand on that. In principle, that is the ideal situation. However, an additional big improvement would be for both parties to lose the team sport/team player mentality, too. I honestly think that is a major contributor to the lack of quality in our leadership.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

edit: Let me expand on that. In principle, that is the ideal situation. However, an additional big improvement would be for both parties to lose the team sport/team player mentality, too. I honestly think that is a major contributor to the lack of quality in our leadership.

I'd agree, but I think part of that is a consequence to the "nationalization" of politics. When elections for House and Senate were about local issues, I think voters were more likely to send independent thinkers to the Legislature and party leadership mattered less.

Now the national leadership for the parties are taking much more interest in the individual races and doing their best to apply national values and issues to local elections. Other posters have mentioned NY23 as an example of a national figure (Palin) trying to force national issues or values onto what is essentially a local election. In NY23, the result was a loss that was firmly rooted in ignorance. What passes for a good candidate in Alaska or Alabama isn't a good candidate for New York.

I'm actually pleased about NY23 for that reason. I'd rather see the national party leaders fail on the local level as it means that local voters are voting based on what matters to them, not based on what "L"etter follows a candidates name.

EDIT: You can also apply the same logic to what happened to Lieberman. National level liberal leaders though Joe had to go and were sucessful unseating him in party only to lose in the general election. Just because Arianna Huffington or Sarah Palin think a candidate is a good candidate for them doesn't mean the local voters need to fall in line.

 

[Si modo]

edit: Let me expand on that. In principle, that is the ideal situation. However, an additional big improvement would be for both parties to lose the team sport/team player mentality, too. I honestly think that is a major contributor to the lack of quality in our leadership.

I'd agree, but I think part of that is a consequence to the "nationalization" of politics. When elections for House and Senate were about local issues, I think voters were more likely to send independent thinkers to the Legislature and party leadership mattered less.

Now the national leadership for the parties are taking much more interest in the individual races and doing their best to apply national values and issues to local elections. Other posters have mentioned NY23 as an example of a national figure (Palin) trying to force national issues or values onto what is essentially a local election. In NY23, the result was a loss that was firmly rooted in ignorance. What passes for a good candidate in Alaska or Alabama isn't a good candidate for New York.

I'm actually pleased about NY23 for that reason. I'd rather see the national party leaders fail on the local level as it means that local voters are voting based on what matters to them, not based on what "L"etter follows a candidates name.

Excellent point. I agree.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Excellent point. I agree.

Thanks. I wanted to point out I edited in the parallel to what happened to Joe Lieberman too. I think the NY23 race and Joe's race have some hopeful parallels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought you flaming libroids anointed Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party?

Maybe you libroids can have a special runoff election to determine who you libroids want to declare the "Leader of the Republican Party".... You seem like such a confused bunch of individuals...

Frank is the one who made her leader of the Republican party. I simply asked who agreed with him.

Answer the question.

Where did Frank anoint her the Leader? Must have been some other thread...

Link please....

Oh I don't know, how about in the 1st fucking post?

Libs were right about Palin. Epic Fail

I've seen the light. It was an Epic Fail. It sucks when the Leader of a Party campaigns for Candidates who lose decisively.

And so you won't have to annoy me with such questions again, here's another link:

Hooked on Phonics Learn to Read - 1st Grade - Ages 6-7 - eBay (item 280419129162 end time Nov-09-09 08:37:49 PST)

 

[Dr.House]

Frank is the one who made her leader of the Republican party. I simply asked who agreed with him.

Answer the question.

Where did Frank anoint her the Leader? Must have been some other thread...

Link please....

Oh I don't know, how about in the 1st fucking post?

Libs were right about Palin. Epic Fail

I've seen the light. It was an Epic Fail. It sucks when the Leader of a Party campaigns for Candidates who lose decisively.

I should be able to assume he meant "as defined by the libruls"... I mean, you assumed he meant it literally...

Of course, we could always ask Frank if he thinks she is the Leader of the Republican Party....

 

[bodecea]

Palin quit because she was crippled as governor and prevented from doing her job as governor by repeated, fraudulent claims that she was breaking the law. Thanks to the Dem machine, she had become a liability instead of an asset to her state.

Boo Hoo. In other words, she can't stand a little political heat. Thanks for pointing out her total inability to cope under even a little pressure.

So she quit and freed herself up for the greater good.

Since then she has once again revitatalized the right and is holding democratic dimwads up for scrutiny. she wrote a book,

$$$$$

she's busy with speaking engagements where she can speak her mind,

More $$$$

and position herself for candidacy in 2010.

What is she running for in 2010? Dog Catcher?

What we hear from the Dems is sour grapes.

Isn't the meaning of 'sour grapes' having to do with not really wanting something we couldn't get? Wouldn't that apply much more to the Republicans then?

You'd fit right in with Palin's mindset it would appear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On the Left: What this thread is about

On the Right: Librul Understanding of this thread.

Either way, it ain't pretty

 

[Political Junky]

I've seen the light. It was an Epic Fail. It sucks when the Leader of a Party campaigns for Candidates who lose decisively.

Who's the white guy behind Obama? Why that's Jon Corzine, a Dem who managed to lose one of the Bluest of our 57 states!

Obama: Deeds is my boy! A vote for Deeds is a vote for Hope and More Change. Yes We Can!

Pre 2009 Blow Out, Obama to Gov Patterson: Don't Run for reelection
Post 2009 Blow Out, Patterson to Obama: Fuck Off, Limpy

Deeds campaigned against Obama's ideas.