Palin chances in 2012 are over

[Cecilie1200]

If the truth be known, the Dems do not want Palin to go away. They want her to stay at head of the "I wanna be POTUS" line. She is the best thing that can happen to the Dems in 2012. They want to drag her quitting, dried up, blood stained body right down the campaign trail with them. No, the Dems love to have Palin in the mix. they don't fear her at all.

Well, so much for that new "tone of civility", huh? I guess if Sarah Palin gets physically attacked, we can accuse you of guilt and complicity, right? You'll be just as much to blame for it as she is for the attack on Giffords. And thanks to the left's shining example in the last few weeks, we won't even have to bother proving that the attacker ever read this post. You said it, you're GUILTY.

Now, for the GOP, that is quite a different equasion. They don't know what to do with her. I expect the GOP brain trust will have many private meetings outside of Tea Bagger ears, confronting the problem they have with Palin. How are they going to handle her as the 2012 elections approach? They know they don't have a chance winning back the WH with her as the candidate, yet they are afraid that if she doesn't win the nomination, she will run as a Bagger. There is no way she will accept another VP nomination. so, that would certainly hand Barry another term.

Your flattery of yourself that you have some insight into the minds of Republicans is laughable. I sincerely doubt you have an insight into your OWN mind, let alone anyone else's.

But by all means, continue entertaining visions of the GOP, wringing its hands in desperation to make tweekos like you happy with whatever candidate they end up with. Don't bother to consider that even if you WERE a likely GOP voter, you STILL aren't bright enough for anyone to WANT you on their side.

As I see it, sooner or later the GOP true feeling will come out and Sarah will take her ball and bat and leave. She will amass her Tea Party and seperate completely from the GOP. That, with the changing demographics in the Uniter States, could spell the end of the Grande Old Party. But that is a topic for another day and another time.

As I see it, you represent the "true feeling" of no group except for useful idiots, duped into believing they're on the cutting edge of intellectual thought by a leftist elite laughing up their sleeves at your gullibility.

The more you talk, the more obvious it is.

 

[Stephanie]

Sarah's Biggest Problem is Stupid don't Heal.

gawd that was dumb.

 

[Toro]

Well, that or the USSR really was
a.) evil, and
b.) an empire

The Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein were both evil, but I'm trying to make a more nuanced point. I'm suggesting that these threats were inflated for political reasons (some of them good reasons) - and, moreover, I'm suggesting that a rhetoric of evil was used to describe a much more benign or technical geopolitical phenomenon; and that this rhetoric of evil was designed to "sell" the policy to the low information voter so that he would lend his electoral support. My suggestion requires that you see the Cold War and War on Terrorism as more than simplistic battles against evil, but larger contexts for American intervention in important regions, that is, contexts for the protection and acquisition of vital geopolitical assets.

Let me try to simplify this for you. Next time you go into Walmart or any other large Department store, take a look at the regions where the products are manufactured. Some of these regions are unstable. Moreover, because they are unstable, they sometimes require "military stabilization". Military stabilization is the kind of thing that would happen if Iran tried to block the Straight of Hormuz, or if the Sandinistas threatened our access to South American sugar, or if any country decided to nationalize a resource that our transnationals controlled or economy needed. The Soviet and Islamic threats, however real, have both been used to justify creating a military presence near resources upon which our economy and lifestyle depend. America did not invent this strategy. This is what superpowers do. Get over it. If we didn't do it, someone else would. The food chain is not for the feint of heart.

Listen. Britain did not say that it was in India for the spices (which was the equivalent of oil to 16th century capitalism); rather, it dressed its geopolitical goals in a grandiose war for civilization. In the foreground we heard glorious stories of how Mother England was civilizing the barbarians -- indeed, cleaning up the natives with the King's English -- while in the background we saw Gandhi's head bloodied with the butt of a rifle.

The rightwing voter (the innocent homelanders of every nation) have always been protected, along with the women and children, from what men must do in "the outlying colonies". Most people don't have the stomach for hardball geopolitics. They don't understand that global politics is a contact sport -- and that their nation must sometimes make tough ethical choices. It's much easier to tell people that their nation is always fighting "the good fight" against evil.

Son, the economies of Great Nations depend on resources from dangerous parts of the globe. The Cold War was used increasingly as a context to bring those dangerous but necessary regions under our protective wing. Washington and Moscow both used the Cold War threat to consolidate control over their various satellites. This is not rocket science, it's a ho-hum day in the life of a Superpower. (yawn) [You have to learn how to question Washington. The Right has always had a problem questioning Washington when it comes to war. At the end of the day, they trust their government leaders deeply.]

I know all that.

But its not that simple. The Cold War was a real, live war. It was not just a war of resources. It was also a war of security. Nicaragua, for example, had zero economic and slightly more strategic value to the United States. But it is what Nicaragua represented - the expansion of communism in America's back yard, and the threat of communism to America - that excited the US so much.

If your thesis was entirely correct, then the United States would have consolidated its power in the world where the USSR had been vanquished. But that did not happen. In fact, the opposite happened, with the US withdrawing support from otherwise vital parts of the world. That was one of the strategic blunders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The US has much less of a presence in Africa than it did during the Cold War. Latin America has complained about US neglect for the past decade. The only place where the US consolidated power was in eastern Europe, but that wasn't because of resources. That was to constrain Russia.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sarah's Biggest Problem is Stupid don't Heal.

....And, turkeys share their necks!!

 

[Stephanie]

Sarah's Biggest Problem is Stupid don't Heal.

....And, turkeys share their necks!!

good grief, we can all hope someday you GROW UP.

 

[shintao]

Palin chances in 2012 are over

This statement implies that she had a chance.

Ive enjoyed being towed in the snow on a sled, and skiing on a canal bank in Arizona.

 

[Trajan]

Case in point...

Compare Obama's Tucson speech to Palins Facebook whine

No, its actually not a case in point.......aside from his well done verbiage for the victims etc. the speech was a strawman, you should be familiar with that since you just employed one as usual, and he did say ; "It didn't", you know the context of that right? go check, it might be valuable.

Last I checked Obama wasn't blamed for anything, kind of changes things a bit ya know? He went there for a particular purpose alone.

One came off as a uniter...the other as a whiny bitch playing the victim

a uniter? man you really do buy it all. "Sheeple R us"

its easy playing one when you are one.....I know thats probably going to blow a fuse for you but you should live with it.

Palins presidential aspirations....if they ever existed....are over

you'll need to start another 5-6 threads at least, some are not sure yet.....

 

[shintao]

How far did Mccains numbers drop when he took on plain Palin? If they went up, then she stands a chance I would think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The intersection of where Sarah lives is that of Baltic and Mediterranean, Willow. She forgot TINAM, 'this is not about me.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

As I see it, you represent the "true feeling" of no group except for useful idiots, duped into believing they're on the cutting edge of intellectual thought by a leftist elite laughing up their sleeves at your gullibility.

Cecilie1200 blathers on the talking points of reactionary dupes who believe they are on the forefront of American intellectual thought. She makes reason stare with the statement above.

 

[Londoner]

But its not that simple. The Cold War was a real, live war. It was not just a war of resources. It was also a war of security.

This is where the Left and Right will always disagree. Washington said that if we didn't stay and win in Vietnam, than communism would spread and the dominos will fall, including Hawaii. Remember: until the very last day, the hawks said "if we leave now, the entire Pacific Theater will fall irreversibly into total communism". But we left without having defeated communism and the dominos never fell. In fact, China evolved into our strongest trading partner, even though they maintained their communist stripes for some time (and never "westernized"). Whether it be Saddam and Iraq, or Nicaragua & Guatemala, Washington all too often says the fate of the world hangs in the balance. I'm not as certain that Washington has been 100% honest and correct in each instance. I tend to look for a wider context for why they may have distorted the nature of certain threats, but I admit that threats absolutely exist, and so I take your point.

To be clear, I don't think this was a simple case of Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon lying about Vietnam or Reagan lying about the Soviet Union. I think the antiwar left often falls into these paranoid fantasies. I'm open to the possibility that our leaders were deeply engaged in powerful (if flawed) narratives about achieving global stability. I'm currently reading "Washington's China" by James Peck. The author pours over all these de-classified documents to help the reader see how China was understood by the National Security Community in the late 40s/early 50s, when the US was trying to fill the power vacuum left by the Great Wars. There was a fascinatingly hysterical echo chamber of paranoia about Beijing, who, it seems, would have willingly traded with the US and its Allies had Washington better understood them. [This is why Nixon was so brilliant and controversial: because he told the hawks to shut up, and he opened China -- and the world did not end. And the same national security community went bonkers when Reagan started cozying up to Gorby. The Cold War was a very powerful context for the global deplyoment of US power -- it became its own self-perpetuating entity, burrowing into expensive government programs, policies and weapons contracts. This is the problem with Big Government: once you give bureaucrats a taste of candy, you eventually get a universe of special interests, no matter how noble the original goal, e.g., defeating evil]

Whether it be China, Vietnam, or Iraq, it seems like Washington's misunderstanding of these regions should make us less trusting of Big Government. That is, maybe our leaders are not as honest and competent as we think they are at doing things like ending poverty at home or fighting evil abroad. Sometimes it really is worth the risk of giving them less power, even on matters where great fears have been justifiably engaged. We will have to agree to disagree about the nature of the communist threat in its Soviet and/or Chinese variants -- from Vietnam to Nicaragua. And we will also have to agree to disagree on whether or not some of our government officials would mislead us about this stuff for reasons good and bad, noble and evil.

 

[Rinata]

Her chances at gaining the GOP nomination in 2012 are gone. The shooting in Arizona and the wounding of Giffords will hang around her neck from now on. Her map showing Giffords's district with crosshairs on it will be part of any campaign against her.

But that will not keep her from running as a Tea Bagger. That will be her fate in 2012.

She had nothing to do with the shooting in Tuscon. Try and grasp simple facts.

The facts are simple..

Palin put her crosshairs on Giffords

Giffords objected to the violence themed rhetoric

Palin laughed and said "Don't retreat....RELOAD"


Whether she likes it or not, Palin is tied to Giffords. Her callous response will come back to haunt her. Her facebook response after the shooting showed she does not have what it takes to be president. Making the Giffords shooting about the further victimization of Palin will not bode well with the voters

Good post, thank you. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp what you said above?? It's just amazing.

 

[Meister]

Palin is just too polarizing to be elected to the presidency...no doubt about that.
I get tired of the left crying about the "crosshairs" and seems to be blinded to the democrats using a "bullseye". What's up with that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

She had nothing to do with the shooting in Tuscon. Try and grasp simple facts.

The facts are simple..

Palin put her crosshairs on Giffords

Giffords objected to the violence themed rhetoric

Palin laughed and said "Don't retreat....RELOAD"


Whether she likes it or not, Palin is tied to Giffords. Her callous response will come back to haunt her. Her facebook response after the shooting showed she does not have what it takes to be president. Making the Giffords shooting about the further victimization of Palin will not bode well with the voters

Good post, thank you. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp what you said above?? It's just amazing.

Maybe because it's horseshit?

Do you have any proof that Jared Loughner ever even SAW that map, Miss Cleo, or did you just divine it in your psychic connection to him?

And that's leaving aside the PAINFULLY obvious - to anyone with the emotional maturity of a ten-year-old, anyway - that psychos don't run out and shoot someone because they're targeted FOR ELECTION DEFEAT. While we're talking about things that some people find hard to grasp, which amazes other people, why do you and your pustulent ilk find it so hard to grasp the concept of "metaphors"? What, your mommy skipped the lecture everyone else got on literal and figurative?

By the way, as everyone except you and your friends in the psych ward dayroom knows by now, that little map you consider such a heinous smoking gun was actually a copy of a similar one put out by DEMOCRATS. If my Congresswoman, whose wounded body you are so eager to use as a human shield for your repugnant filth attacks, had been a Republican and gotten shot, would you be rushing in to indict the Democrats as co-conspirators for THEIR map? In a fucking pig's eye, and don't even try to say otherwise.

What Jared Loughner did to my Congresswoman and my neighbors was horrific, but at least HE had the excuse of being insane. What excuse do YOU have for the horror YOU are perpetrating on my community and the rest of the nation? And how do you look yourself in the mirror without wanting to vomit?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ya know,, I heard on Fox News, The Number One News Source in America. that the folks in Arizona have a petition to recall the big mouthed demonRat of a sheriff.. yep.. low blow he dealt Mrs. Palin.. and America knows it.

That is obviously a lie.

Do you care?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ya know,, I heard on Fox News, The Number One News Source in America. that the folks in Arizona have a petition to recall the big mouthed demonRat of a sheriff.. yep.. low blow he dealt Mrs. Palin.. and America knows it.

Fox is the Number One News Source??

UM, actually, yes they are.

"The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30cnn.html

Um, actually they are NOT.

Buy a fucking clue.

 

[Synthaholic]

and obamas chances are even less than Palins do you have a point?

You actually believe that Palin has a better chance to be elected president than President Obama?

Did I say that? But what the hell with a failed economy under his belt if people want to continue supporting him more fucking power to them

You didn't answer the question, Rebecca. Yes or no.

 

[Synthaholic]

Network newscasts receive substantially higher ratings than cable news

I wouldn't know, show me.

Fat Knowledge: Network Nightly News vs. Cable

According to MediaBistro.com, on Sept 20 the NBC Nightly News had 8.2 million viewers, and CBS and ABC each had 7.5 million viewers (for a total of 23.2 million). On the cable side the largest audience was for The O'Reilly Factor with 2 million (or 3.1 million if you include his rebroadcast) viewers. So the network audiences are still much larger than any particular cable show, but their audiences are going down steadily (as seen in the graph) due to the internet and cable news.

So, Willow Tree is talking shit AGAIN?

Well, color me shocked.

 

[Synthaholic]

Face it, you calling women a bitch shows your true colors my friend.

Lefty men are some of the biggest pussies I have ever seen. And they hate women, remember folks, WOMEN they spew "their party CHAMPIONS", yet they have no problems calling them bitches, Cxxts, etc etc. Pathetic little creatures they are.

No, we just hate rightwing bitches.

 

[Stephanie]

She had nothing to do with the shooting in Tuscon. Try and grasp simple facts.

The facts are simple..

Palin put her crosshairs on Giffords

Giffords objected to the violence themed rhetoric

Palin laughed and said "Don't retreat....RELOAD"


Whether she likes it or not, Palin is tied to Giffords. Her callous response will come back to haunt her. Her facebook response after the shooting showed she does not have what it takes to be president. Making the Giffords shooting about the further victimization of Palin will not bode well with the voters

Good post, thank you. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp what you said above?? It's just amazing.

hahahaham, why is so hard for people to grasp. because the MAJORITY of the American people don't AGREE with you useful tools.