Who will be the DNC's choice to run for Pres in 2012?

They kept Bush under wraps for 2 years.

IF The Tea party officially becomes a party, Palin would run under them, and not with the GOP. She would carry lots of votes but not enough to win. Many people would recall what she did to get women in ofc, and people like me will recall she quit on her state. But if she did run, obama gets in, if not, the dnc will have to find someone else.

Oh, Palin intends to leverage the Tea Party to overthrow the current GOP leadership.

No third party.

Reagan did the same thing in the 70s.

Hmm

It took a Carter to get a Reagan.

So you think

It takes an Obama to get a Palin?

I don't think so. I truly can't see her as President.
I agree. However ,Palin will remain a GOP/Tea Party mover and shaker for many years.
I would expect a GOP president to appoint her to his cabinet. Sec'y of the Interior or Labor, or possibly head of the EPA.
Interior because she is form Alaska and an advocate of the Outdoors.
EPA head for the same reasons as above AND she was not hesitant to put her foot down wiht the oil compnaies doing business in Prudhoe Bay.
Sec'y of Labor....Alaska is a big union state. Palin has negotiating skills with unions. Especially with Alaska's powerful public employee unions. She was able to keep a balance between union wants while protecting the taxpayers of AK.
 
Clinton embraced Republicans' agenda and reinvented himself.

Obama won't do anyting of the sort.

Clinton did no such thing.

Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.
 
Now that is interesting. You can think creatively. Hmmm. Do you think that a Democratic Party with 40 or more votes in the Senate would ever approve Palin to a cabinet position? I happen to think that a president should have whoever s/he wants provided said person is not a felon or a comic book character.
 
They kept Bush under wraps for 2 years.

IF The Tea party officially becomes a party, Palin would run under them, and not with the GOP. She would carry lots of votes but not enough to win. Many people would recall what she did to get women in ofc, and people like me will recall she quit on her state. But if she did run, obama gets in, if not, the dnc will have to find someone else.

Oh, Palin intends to leverage the Tea Party to overthrow the current GOP leadership.

No third party.

Reagan did the same thing in the 70s.

Not at all. The conservative wing managed to wrest control from the moderates and liberals in the party; nothing from outside the party had anything to do with it. And, it was not in the 1970s, it was in the 1980 primaries.
HUH?.....Reagan was governor of California. He used the same methids as President to control state spending and forced an economic recovery in CA, as he used to bring about economic revival for the nation.
 
The GOP leadership was in DC, not in Sacramento. Don't give credit RR for things he did not do until the 1980s.
 
My understanding is that the DNC definitely wants Sarah Palin to run in 2012

All their problems will be solved

They kept Bush under wraps for 2 years.

IF The Tea party officially becomes a party, Palin would run under them, and not with the GOP. She would carry lots of votes but not enough to win. Many people would recall what she did to get women in ofc, and people like me will recall she quit on her state. But if she did run, obama gets in, if not, the dnc will have to find someone else.

The DNC likes Palin running as a third party candidate even better
Putting her up-against Obama, would be similar to Republicans throwing Bob Dole "to the wolves", against Bill Clinton.

Republicans would (finally) get to "play" their throw-away candidate....and, (finally) be done-with-her.

sarah_mad.jpg
 
Gridlock doesn't go far enough. Gotta roll back everything Obama has done.
Won't happen.
Another lib who thinks democrats will be in charge for eternity.
The Left's greed for political power is insufferable.

Either you deliberately misedited what I wrote, or you should be replying to Revere or Two Thumbs.

CORRECTION: I was wrong about this, and thereisnospoon is right. I did write "won't happen" in Post 25. My apology.
 
Last edited:
Clinton embraced Republicans' agenda and reinvented himself.

Obama won't do anyting of the sort.

Clinton did no such thing.

Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.


I wouldn't. He's an Impeached, Lose the Law License LIAR.
 
Sarah Palin without a doubt is legitimate to the far right. She truly can reve that base up. However, she cannot take the center, moderates, or the independents. Thus, her % will be no more than 35 to 40 of the electorate. If she would accept a Romney or a Huckabee on the ticket, she could pick up another 5%. But that is as far as it could ever possibly go.
Moderates have no ruddder. They vote for whom they think will win. Moderates car not for issues unless one or more rolls up their driveway. Moderates are people who usually don't watch/listen to the news, or any other media.
They live in the burbs. They pay more attention to their kid's sports than anything else.
When they are not shuffling their little cupcakes to various structured activities, they close their garage doors, lower their window blinds and don't emerge from their homes until they go back to work. They are non-participants. In fact most who call themsleves moderate have the lowest registered voter turnout pct of any demographic.
Independents always tend to lean right. These are socially conscious fiscally conservative voters who pay very close attention to kitchen table issues. They most likely eschew GOP affiliation to distance themselves from hard right Christian groups. Independents will on occasion vote for socially moderate/ fiscally conservative democrats. Independents were the deciding vote that swept Heath Shuler( NC-11) into the House. Shuler is a conservative democrat. He has been a solid conservative voice on the Democrat side of the aisle.
 
Cenk Uygur for President, Alan Grayson for Vice President!
0.jpg

Haha, no really.. Obama will run again in '12, he'll win again. I've yet to see one poll where he loses to a GOP candidate. Just because his approval rating isn't sky high, doesn't mean anything. Everything's about choice.. and when faced with the choice of Sarah Palin or Barack Obama.. HAHA! It's a no-brainer. And every poll I've seen, the American public agrees.
Polls are for idiots who have no desire to do their own homework.
Polls are the opiate of the uninformed.
 
Sarah Palin without a doubt is legitimate to the far right. She truly can reve that base up. However, she cannot take the center, moderates, or the independents. Thus, her % will be no more than 35 to 40 of the electorate. If she would accept a Romney or a Huckabee on the ticket, she could pick up another 5%. But that is as far as it could ever possibly go.
Moderates have no ruddder. They vote for whom they think will win. Moderates car not for issues unless one or more rolls up their driveway. Moderates are people who usually don't watch/listen to the news, or any other media.
They live in the burbs. They pay more attention to their kid's sports than anything else.
When they are not shuffling their little cupcakes to various structured activities, they close their garage doors, lower their window blinds and don't emerge from their homes until they go back to work. They are non-participants. In fact most who call themsleves moderate have the lowest registered voter turnout pct of any demographic.
Independents always tend to lean right. These are socially conscious fiscally conservative voters who pay very close attention to kitchen table issues. They most likely eschew GOP affiliation to distance themselves from hard right Christian groups. Independents will on occasion vote for socially moderate/ fiscally conservative democrats. Independents were the deciding vote that swept Heath Shuler( NC-11) into the House. Shuler is a conservative democrat. He has been a solid conservative voice on the Democrat side of the aisle.

That type of analysis demonstrates why you will always be in the small minority.
 
Oh, Palin intends to leverage the Tea Party to overthrow the current GOP leadership.

No third party.

Reagan did the same thing in the 70s.

Not at all. The conservative wing managed to wrest control from the moderates and liberals in the party; nothing from outside the party had anything to do with it. And, it was not in the 1970s, it was in the 1980 primaries.
HUH?.....Reagan was governor of California. He used the same methids as President to control state spending and forced an economic recovery in CA, as he used to bring about economic revival for the nation.
Ronald Reagan was a brain-dead, B-actor dinosaur..... :rolleyes:

"In 1973, Rosenfeld was working as a particle physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That September, the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a bill creating a commission to manage California’s energy policy. Ronald Reagan, then governor, vetoed it as an intrusion on free enterprise. But after the first Arab oil embargo caused energy prices to spike, two things happened. First, Reagan switched his position. Stung by popular discontent in car-conscious California, he agreed in 1974 to create what eventually became known as the California Energy Commission. Second, Rosenfeld shifted his focus toward energy efficiency, organizing a working group (which eventually became the Center for Building Science) at the laboratory. “I thought,” he told me dryly, “we had better do such things as learning how to turn out the lights.”

California’s new commission was born with something of an identity crisis: environmentalists hoped it would promote conservation, while utilities wanted it to fast-track production (particularly of nuclear power) to close a potentially crippling shortage in electricity generation. Rosenfeld, who had initially come to the commission’s attention when he critiqued its first energy-efficiency standards for residential buildings, quickly proved instrumental in setting the agency’s direction. In 1976, San Diego Gas & Electric Company asked the commission to approve a nuclear-power plant called Sundesert. Jerry Brown, the eclectic Democrat who succeeded Reagan as governor, didn’t want to authorize the plant, but he faced pressure to close the anticipated gap between electricity demand and supply. Rosenfeld squared the circle for him, telling Brown that if the state imposed efficiency standards on refrigerators (which then consumed about 20 percent of a typical home’s power), it would save at least as much electricity as Sundesert could produce. The state went on to block the Sundesert plant, and in 1977 the commission approved aggressive efficiency standards not only for refrigerators and freezers but also for air conditioners.

“Efficiency just gradually took over Rosenfeld said. In the next decade, the Energy Commission followed with efficiency standards for furnaces, dryers, swimming-pool heaters, household cooking appliances, heat pumps, showerheads, and fluorescent-lamp ballasts, among other products. Those rules became models for use in other states and, eventually, for federal appliance standards. In 1978, using a pioneering computer program developed by Rosenfeld and his colleagues, the Energy Commission opened another front by approving more-sophisticated energy-efficiency standards for new buildings. Other states, and even other countries, followed."
 
Listen to the loons above croak their litany of doom.

Let's unscramble their inanity with common sense.

A gridlock will occur if Obama and the Senate cannot reach agreement with a House dominated by a small majority of the radical right. So, no, the House cannot well represent the will of the people, only that of a fraction that stampeded some of the primaries.

Obama will be renominated, barring death or incapacity, regardless if the economy improves or not. If it does not, the Dems are going to campaign against the Bush policies until it does.

The American people will pay attention to a struggle between the President and the House. Newt tried that, and the American people kicked him in the ass and got rid of him. As a result of the impeachment, several GOP senators were defeated that fall. The radical right should be very cautious about walking that same trail.

The health care plan will not be repealed, replaced, or even really reformed. The majority of the people want some form of the bill; only a minority want it gone. If spoon believes differently, he is out of touch with how most Americans think.

The Dems led by BHO are eagerly waiting to have a House that does nothing so that the GOP can be blamed for everything.
You're right. Mst Americans hate their HMO/PPO and the health insurance industry as a whole. They want something to change. However as the surveys and yes those dopey polls have shown, the vast majority of Americans are absolutely opposed to any type of government insurance or socialized medicine.
Of course Obama has a plot. He'd love to sit in the Oval Office vetoing one GOP bill after another so he can take the political cover he's been wanting since 1/21/09.
Obama cares about one thing and one thng only. Himself. Obama is so obsessed with his legacy, he is willing to throw the democrat party unde rthe bus, ensure a GOP majority in Both chambers and stop government in it's tracks just so he can say "what me? Not my fault. The republicans sent me this shit and no way I was going to sign it..
Jakey, guess what... The American people are not as stupid as you think. They will see one Bill after another go down to Obama's flaming Veto pen. They will figure out that it is the President, not Congress that is placing the nation in the chest freezer.
After 24 months of trying to spin every Obama policy to the positive even in the face of devastating deficits and governemnt spending schemes, the libs will cheer for doom and gloom right through the first Tuesday of Nov, 2012.
 
Clinton did no such thing.

Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.


I wouldn't. He's an Impeached
.....For SEX!!!

"Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady.

To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.

Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.

The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.

The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."
 
Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.


I wouldn't. He's an Impeached
.....For SEX!!!

"Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady.

To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.

Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.

The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.

The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."



He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury not for infidelity.
 

Forum List

Back
Top