Palin on the Rise; Obama Is Old News

[beowolfe]

I would love for Sarah Palin to be the Republican nominee. Someone would win in a landslide.

None of Sarah Palin's "followers" can say what she stands for or what her "policies" are. Unless her policies are "drill baby drill" and "no bridge to nowhere".

What are her "strategies" on nuclear arms, foreign policy, health-care, and the economy?

Can she even spell most of those words? Can the right even spell most of those words?

For her to be the nominee, all the stories about infidelity, secession-ism, her pastor weaving magical spells of protection against witchcraft, her viewpoint on science, all those things would come back to haunt her. For her base, so what? They don't care about stupid things like reality, they only care about ideology. Or "idiotology".

Yet you don't know what her policies are and are totally against her.... WTF?

She has no policies except to make as much money as she can before the light fades. If you listen to her with an unbiased ear, you have to conclude that the woman is daffy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would love for Sarah Palin to be the Republican nominee. Someone would win in a landslide.

None of Sarah Palin's "followers" can say what she stands for or what her "policies" are. Unless her policies are "drill baby drill" and "no bridge to nowhere".

What are her "strategies" on nuclear arms, foreign policy, health-care, and the economy?

Can she even spell most of those words? Can the right even spell most of those words?

For her to be the nominee, all the stories about infidelity, secession-ism, her pastor weaving magical spells of protection against witchcraft, her viewpoint on science, all those things would come back to haunt her. For her base, so what? They don't care about stupid things like reality, they only care about ideology. Or "idiotology".

Yet you don't know what her policies are and are totally against her.... WTF?

She has no policies except to make as much money as she can before the light fades. If you listen to her with an unbiased ear, you have to conclude that the woman is daffy.

It's clear to me that she has tailored her positions and message to specifically appeal to the same rightwing market that guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., have made millions off. She's experienced as a fisherman, and good fishermen know where to find the fish and what they will best bite on.

 

[beowolfe]

[I could tell you what her policies are -but then I've actually made an effort to find out. .

Link us to one interview where Sarah Palin talks at length, substantively, in detail, with knowledge, on any major national issue. Preferably a foreign policy issue, but any will do.

Anyone? Anyone got a link to any of the above?

Nope. Such a link doesn't exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Link us to one interview where Sarah Palin talks at length, substantively, in detail, with knowledge, on any major national issue. Preferably a foreign policy issue, but any will do.

Anyone? Anyone got a link to any of the above?

Nope. Such a link doesn't exist.

Like I said the other day, there are conservatives on this board smarter and more knowledgeable than Palin. I think.

Any conservatives here want to dispute that?

 

[MaggieMae]

December 13, 2009

Palin on the Rise; Obama is Old News

By Jack Kelly

Excerpts:

The object of Mr. Gibbs' scorn was Gallup's tracking poll for the day before, which showed only 47 percent of respondents approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing, with 46 percent disapproving.

Perhaps Mr. Gibbs' skin was thin because this was the lowest ranking for a president at this point in his presidency since Gallup began conducting presidential approval polls in 1938.

Meanwhile, a CNN/Opinion Research Poll also released Monday indicated 46 percent of respondents have a favorable impression of Sarah Palin, while 46 percent have an unfavorable one.

The polls were not quite the same. Gallup asked people what they thought of the job Mr. Obama was doing, not whether or not they liked him.

Even with that caveat, though, the convergence between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin is remarkable. There is no statistical difference between the one and the other.

This represents a substantial gain in public esteem for Ms. Palin since she resigned as governor of Alaska in July, and a substantial decline for Mr. Obama over the same period.

..."Going Rogue" received savage reviews from most liberals, like that from Ana Marie Cox in The Washington Post, who acknowledged she hadn't actually read the book.

Those who did have a different opinion. Stanley Fish, writing for The New York Times, described it as "compelling and very well done."

The reaction of liberals to Sarah Palin -- which is like that of vampires to garlic -- indicate she is the Republican they fear most. With good reason, Mr. Fish thinks.

"Perseverance, the ability to absorb defeat without falling into defeatism, is the key to Palin's character," he wrote. "Her political opponents, especially those who dismissed Ronald Reagan before he was elected, should take note."
___


Full article here:


RealClearPolitics - Palin on the Rise; Obama is Old News

See what happens Sinatra??? The second anyone posts anything about Palin, here comes the libs, most of the time it's them that start the threads. They are absolutely terrified of her. They post like she is no big deal, but no big deals don't get any attention. She gets it all.. She scare the be-jesus out of em. She does not have a penis, but she's got the balls and the backbone to get the job done and they know it.

The whole point of even posting such polling results are to [hopefully] get responses, or haven't you noticed that when Sinatra DOESN'T get them, he simply bumps his original OP back up. It's the ego factor that I find mildly annoying, yet amusing, hardly frightening. People like Sinatra are the ones most attracted to Sarah Palin, who shares the same otherworldly LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT ME!! values.

 

[MaggieMae]

The next book that I want to read is Newt's, I beleive it's titled " God in America." Newt is an historian and with so many on the left claiming that our founders were not Christian he and his wife have gone back and researched that statement. First, it's totally untrue and they have proof of that. This country was founded on Christian Judeo principles. So that's my next book.

What kind of junk are you reading that says the left claims our founders were not Christian? Are you nuts? Anybody who even briefly knows American history is aware of the lengthy and contentious debates among the founders over church and state, and it was BECAUSE they were "Christians."

Good God, when are you people going to stop just making up shit?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, Maple, go read Founding Faith if you truly want to know about the issue. The Founders were not Jesus Jumping evangelicals falling in the snow every chance to pray so forth so on ad infinitum ad nauseum. Become knowledgable about the issue please.

Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America (Hardcover) ~ Steven Waldman

Editorial Reviews. From Publishers Weekly. Starred Review. Various American evangelicals have claimed the founding fathers as believing and practicing Protestants who intended America to be a Christian nation. Secularists, on the other hand, see in the same historical record evidence that the founders were often Deists at best. Both views are grossly oversimplified, argues Waldman, cofounder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com. In this engaging, well-researched study, Waldman focuses on the five founding fathers who had the most influence on religion's role in the state—Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Madison—and untangles their complex legacy. They were certainly diverse in religiosity, with Jefferson a self-diagnosed heretic, for instance, and Washington a churchgoing Anglican who was silent on points of doctrine and refrained from taking communion. All, however, were committed to the creation of religious freedom in the new nation. Waldman deserves kudos for systematically debunking popular myths: America was not primarily settled by people seeking religious freedom; the separation of church and state did not result from the activism of secularists, but, paradoxically, from the efforts of 18th-century evangelicals; and the American Revolution was as much a reaction against European theocracy as a struggle for economic or political freedom. Waldman produces a thoughtful and remarkably balanced account of religion in early America. (Mar. 18) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Faith-Providence-Politics-Religious/dp/1400064376[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

YES !!!!!

Go Palin...she gives us all a rise

Palin/Bachman 2012

There would be a catfight with that matchup over who gets the top billing. They both have egos the size of Paris Hilton (and fewer brains combined).

 

[MaggieMae]

Geez you liberals get more hillarious every day. You got your asses kicked in regular time--in New Jersey--the bluest of blue states--then the 1st time ever in Virgina--no democrat was left standing--even in local & court elections.

Yet--you stand firm--on the Hoffman incident. A female liberal that stuck an R behind her name & was picked by 7 people as the republican candidate in the back of a pizza parlor. Palin noticed this woman's liberal voting record after this liberal female had received 900K for campaigning--called her out on it--installed Hoffman in the last two weeks.

What is amazing is that Hoffman got so close.

Yup - the 09 election was a huge momentum change toward conservative America.

2010 is gonna prove even more so...

Do you liberals ever pay any attention to history?--

1994 when Republicans won in a land-slide in congress with a popular- President-- Bill Clinton & a good economy--

Now do you really believe that democrats have got a snow-balls chance in hell of surviving 2010--with all of this non-sense government spending -soaring deficits &-with an economy that has over 10% unemployment? Tent cities are all across this country. Homeless families are everywhere. It was your party that was going to "fix" everything right?

Where's all that hopey & changey at now? Democrats are in CHARGE of all 3 houses of government. They have more than a 2 to 1 majority in the house & a filibuster proof senate & they have made things much WORSE.

Democrats are going to get massacred in 2010--in both houses of congress & Barack Obama will be a 1 term President. It's already in the books. This country is going to swing wildly to the right for the next 4 to 8 years, & possibly even much longer.

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher

Oddly enough, I'm actually hoping that Republicans make a good showing in the 2010 elections. It's time for this ridiculous gridlock (us vs. them) to end. But unless the Republican voters get smart and vote for THINKING, moderate Republicans, they can forget about 2012. The '94 sweep paved the way for compromise, which was a GOOD thing. But if Capitol Hill becomes a bunch of wild-eyed YouTube reactionaries trying to push radical conservatism, they will be digging their own graves.

 

[MaggieMae]

Democrats are going to get massacred in 2010--in both houses of congress & Barack Obama will be a 1 term President. It's already in the books. This country is going to swing wildly to the right for the next 4 to 8 years, & possibly even much longer.

What books would those be? What will be their platform? Lower taxes? That depletes the Treasury, and will cause the deficit to rise even further. What else? What will the campaigning be about? You don't win elections by ONLY denigrating the opposite party, you know. It doesn't take long before even the most avid supporters start to wonder what alternatives a candidate is proposing.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yup - the 09 election was a huge momentum change toward conservative America.

2010 is gonna prove even more so...

Do you liberals ever pay attention to history--

1994 when Republicans won in a land-slide in congress with a popular- President-- Bill Clinton & a good economy--

Now do you really believe that democrats have got a snow-balls chance in hell of surviving 2010--with all of this government spending--soaring deficits & with this economy showing over 10% unemployment?-

Democrats are going to get massacred in 2010--in both houses of congress & Barack Obama will be a 1 term President.

Clinton's popularity was in the 30's in 1994. Yes, I know history.

[Annoying, ain't it...] How old are you, nine?

 

[MaggieMae]

,,,

I don't agree. For Obama to have an approval rating in the high 40's after the campaign that has been waged against him by the wingnuts is remarkable. It shows that some
Americans still have sense.

No campaign has been waged other than the one he has waged. 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill, that is not creating any private sector jobs, passing this legislation without anyone reading it. Where is the TRANSPERENCY he promised? Stating that unemployment would not go above 8% because of this Stimulus bill, it's over 10% now. 410 billion dollar Omnibus bill with 9,000 earmarks, after he PROMISED that he would not sign anything with earmarks in it. Lately another Ommibus bill over 1 trillion dollars with another 5,000 earmarks in it. Stating at least 4 different times during the campaign that the negotiations on health care would be broadcast on CSPAN, with drug companies, doctors, insurers, hospitals etc. That has not happened, it's been in the back room with a minority of people writing this monstrosity. Where is the TRANSPERENCY he promised?
Now Cap and Trade which will tax EVERY American family app 1,500 to 3,000 dollars a year in higher utility costs??

No one needs to mount a campaign against him he is doing a great job of that all by himself.

" Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon Bonaparte

Bullshit. C-Span 2 and C-Span 3 aired live committee hearings. Are you angry that you didn't get to see them huddled together in some conference room with their pencils and legal pads? Get real.

And I really really really get sick of people continuing to say that these bills "were not even read." More bullshit. If they weren't read, then how did they know which parts they didn't like, genius?

 

[frazzledgear]

I could tell you what her policies are -but then I've actually made an effort to find out. Just like I did with Obama even before he won the Democrat nomination -which probably explains why his choices for all those self-declared communist revolutionaries/radical czars were no surprise to me. And I made a point of finding out what her positions on different issues were to find out whether she was just a McCain-lite or not when he chose her as VP. It really wasn't difficult to find out her own positions on just about any issue at that time. But in light of the fact that just in the last few months she has given numerous TV interviews discussing her OWN positions instead of McCain's and they are spelled out in her book -it should be even easier even for lazy people to find out her positions. If they really wanted to know. If you didn't, it is much easier to just pretend you just can't figure out where to find that kind of information, isn't it?

Whatever his reasons for picking her, it was NOT because she shared his political views on most issues. But as a VP candidate, the campaign was never about where SHE stood on the issues -it was at all times about McCain's. Once chosen as VP, that person's job is to help explain and push the Presidential candidate's positions. Not their own. So if you didn't know what HER positions on anything were before she was even picked and still didn't know while she was a VP candidate -it is because she actually did her job. If you STILL don't know NOW -it is due to your own sheer laziness.

Since the woman isn't running for any office, your "concern" about where she stands on each and every issue must really be because you suspect she MIGHT run for an elected office again at some point in the future. If that should actually happen, only THEN is she obligated to make it as easy as possible for you to use the minimal energy to find out her positions. But ONLY if you would actually be a constituent who would be voting on that office. If you can't vote for the office she MIGHT be running for someday -the fact YOU don't know her positions is irrelevant. But since she isn't running for anything right now and has declared NO interest in running for any office -complaining you don't know where she stands on all issues - and given the fact you probably refused to watch any of her interviews and refused to read her book -your ignorance is actually something you CHOSE and I have no sympathy for you on that. Since it is a chosen ignorance and the cure for it is readily available - the entire thrust of your post just sounds like a really weird obsession.

Great effin' post...

From the guy who's started more Palin threads than anyone here...

Were the ones he started obsessively looking for the smallest reason to criticize her? Ones intent on repeating proven lies and smears about her? Because THOSE outnumber all other threads about Palin by a landslide. The fascination and obsession of the left with Palin is just weird to the point of mental illness since they haven't slacked off in the least even though she is just a private citizen now. The fact that a conservative started a couple of threads about a conservative politician at the time she really was a politician -is perfectly understandable and entirely normal.

 

[Emma]

Palin/Bachman 2012

Please God. I don't ask for much...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Great effin' post...

From the guy who's started more Palin threads than anyone here...

Were the ones he started obsessively looking for the smallest reason to criticize her? Ones intent on repeating proven lies and smears about her? Because THOSE outnumber all other threads about Palin by a landslide. The fascination and obsession of the left with Palin is just weird to the point of mental illness since they haven't slacked off in the least even though she is just a private citizen now. The fact that a conservative started a couple of threads about a conservative politician at the time she really was a politician -is perfectly understandable and entirely normal.

We're onto the game here. It's the defense of Palin that is if you criticize her you must be afraid of her, or obsessed with, or suffering from some mental malady. Sorry, it's not going to work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you liberals ever pay attention to history--

1994 when Republicans won in a land-slide in congress with a popular- President-- Bill Clinton & a good economy--

Now do you really believe that democrats have got a snow-balls chance in hell of surviving 2010--with all of this government spending--soaring deficits & with this economy showing over 10% unemployment?-

Democrats are going to get massacred in 2010--in both houses of congress & Barack Obama will be a 1 term President.

Clinton's popularity was in the 30's in 1994. Yes, I know history.

[Annoying, ain't it...] How old are you, nine?

You're denying that Clinton's poll numbers were in the 30's in 1994? What is your IQ? Nine?

 

[Maple]

I don't agree. For Obama to have an approval rating in the high 40's after the campaign that has been waged against him by the wingnuts is remarkable. It shows that some
Americans still have sense.

No campaign has been waged other than the one he has waged. 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill, that is not creating any private sector jobs, passing this legislation without anyone reading it. Where is the TRANSPERENCY he promised? Stating that unemployment would not go above 8% because of this Stimulus bill, it's over 10% now. 410 billion dollar Omnibus bill with 9,000 earmarks, after he PROMISED that he would not sign anything with earmarks in it. Lately another Ommibus bill over 1 trillion dollars with another 5,000 earmarks in it. Stating at least 4 different times during the campaign that the negotiations on health care would be broadcast on CSPAN, with drug companies, doctors, insurers, hospitals etc. That has not happened, it's been in the back room with a minority of people writing this monstrosity. Where is the TRANSPERENCY he promised?
Now Cap and Trade which will tax EVERY American family app 1,500 to 3,000 dollars a year in higher utility costs??

No one needs to mount a campaign against him he is doing a great job of that all by himself.

" Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon Bonaparte

Bullshit. C-Span 2 and C-Span 3 aired live committee hearings. Are you angry that you didn't get to see them huddled together in some conference room with their pencils and legal pads? Get real.

And I really really really get sick of people continuing to say that these bills "were not even read." More bullshit. If they weren't read, then how did they know which parts they didn't like, genius?

He was on tape saying that all of this healthcare bill would be debated live on Cspan negotiations would be broadcast on C- Span with the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, insurers etc. at least 4 times.

Fact- no one had a chance to read that 787 billion dollar stimulus bill before he signed it.

 

[Maple]

No campaign has been waged other than the one he has waged. 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill, that is not creating any private sector jobs, passing this legislation without anyone reading it. Where is the TRANSPERENCY he promised? Stating that unemployment would not go above 8% because of this Stimulus bill, it's over 10% now. 410 billion dollar Omnibus bill with 9,000 earmarks, after he PROMISED that he would not sign anything with earmarks in it. Lately another Ommibus bill over 1 trillion dollars with another 5,000 earmarks in it. Stating at least 4 different times during the campaign that the negotiations on health care would be broadcast on CSPAN, with drug companies, doctors, insurers, hospitals etc. That has not happened, it's been in the back room with a minority of people writing this monstrosity. Where is the TRANSPERENCY he promised?
Now Cap and Trade which will tax EVERY American family app 1,500 to 3,000 dollars a year in higher utility costs??

No one needs to mount a campaign against him he is doing a great job of that all by himself.

" Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon Bonaparte

Bullshit. C-Span 2 and C-Span 3 aired live committee hearings. Are you angry that you didn't get to see them huddled together in some conference room with their pencils and legal pads? Get real.

And I really really really get sick of people continuing to say that these bills "were not even read." More bullshit. If they weren't read, then how did they know which parts they didn't like, genius?

He was on tape saying that all of this healthcare bill would be debated live on Cspan negotiations would be broadcast on C- Span with the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, insurers etc. at least 4 times.

Fact- no one had a chance to read that 787 billion dollar stimulus bill before he signed it.

Here is one fact U-Tube video of Obama's promise.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyqF093KRqQ[/ame]

 

[Maple]

Bullshit. C-Span 2 and C-Span 3 aired live committee hearings. Are you angry that you didn't get to see them huddled together in some conference room with their pencils and legal pads? Get real.

And I really really really get sick of people continuing to say that these bills "were not even read." More bullshit. If they weren't read, then how did they know which parts they didn't like, genius?

He was on tape saying that all of this healthcare bill would be debated live on Cspan negotiations would be broadcast on C- Span with the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, insurers etc. at least 4 times.

Fact- no one had a chance to read that 787 billion dollar stimulus bill before he signed it.

Here is one fact U-Tube video of Obama's promise.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyqF093KRqQ[/ame]

And another little FACT for you, it appears this is a gotcha moment for you. How does this make you feel " Genius," don't you think it would be smart to harm yourself with some FACTS before you spout off on the message boards. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

CNSNews.com - Democratic Senator Predicts None of His Colleagues 'Will Have the Chance' to Read Final Stimulus Bill Before Vote

Of the several senators that CNSNews.com interviewed on Thursday, only Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) claimed to have read the entire bill--and he was speaking of the preliminary version that had been approved by the Senate, not the final 999-page version that the House-Senate conference committee was still haggling over on Thursday afternoon.

When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, "Yes."

 

[MaggieMae]

Clinton's popularity was in the 30's in 1994. Yes, I know history.

[Annoying, ain't it...] How old are you, nine?

You're denying that Clinton's poll numbers were in the 30's in 1994? What is your IQ? Nine?

If I screwed up and included your Clinton comment, I apologize. But it does seem clear that I was criticizing the excessive use of the smiley face.