Posted on 11/05/2010 11:07:03 PM PDT by Chet 99
10 topics other than Palin that the MSM and the pundit class should be talking about:
1)Why Mitt Romney cannot gain any separation in polls of the 2012 GOP contenders?
2)Whether Mike Huckabee will run in 2012 or not
3)How remarkable the House gain was
4)The power of the TPM
5)The power of Rush Limbaugh
6)The GOP establishment not helping Renee Ellmers in her recount
7)Why the GOP establishment is still schmoozing up to Lisa Murkowski
8)Why Sharron Angle did not have a ground game to compete with Harry Reid
9)The overwhelming success of winning 19 state legislatures
10)GWB appearing on Oprah
People spend so much time claiming that Palin is UNELECTABLE.
But why is not more time spent on several polls in the past 5 months that show that only about 40% of the American people feel Obama deserves to be re-elected and over half feel he doesn’t deserve to be re-elected. After all Obama is the POTUS and the Anointed One and not Palin.
In addition re-election campaigns are referendums on the sitting POTUS and not the challenger. Regardless what Palin does or says if Obama is polling more than 51% in job approval in Sept 2012 with Gallup he will win re-election and if he is polling less than 47% he will lose. The only time Palin’s qualifications will matter if the Messiah is poling between 47%-51%.
the media is obssessed with going around every republican to get them on record to attack Palin. Most republicans are cowards. They either say no comment or go along with the attack
I tell what is really frustrating the GOP establishment is not so much what Palin is doing but that Mitt Romney cannot gain separation on Palin in the polls and that many good candidates are refusing to run in 2012. Here is a rundown of those who have already said they are not running:
1) Michael Bloomberg
2) Mike Pence (running for Governor of Indiana)
3) Jeb Bush
4) Mitch Daniels
5) Scott Brown
6) Chris Christie on many occasions
7) Jim Demint
8) Bobby Jindal
9) General Petraeus
10)Paul Ryan
And what terrifies the GOP establishment is the thought of Mike Huckabee not running in 2012 because he would rather keep his wife’s affection and not sacrifice his 6 figure or 7 figure salary on Fox News for the vain hope of winning the GOP nomination and then beating Obama.
Interesting that she hasn't declared yet, hasn't asked for an endorsement, and certainly hasn't tried to get on the ballot in SC as a presidential candidate for 2012, that you find it noteworthy to report what the fascist media thinks of someone for not jumping on a the bandwagon and then sitting there to see if there's ever even a parade.
I'm happy to see that Chet 99 is either banned or suspended, but he and others will be back in force.
We need some unity folks, not with the likes of Rove and Kraut unless they “come to Jesus” and admit they have to change their ways (not just babble about having misspoken), but with a lot of Republicans who many folks are accustomed to bashing as a matter of course.
There are a lot, I mean a LOT, of Republicans who haven't had any way to do anything other than just hang on and try to make a little difference here and there. They knew that a third party was nothing but a rat hole to throw votes in while really voting democrat and now they finally have a chance to unite with Tea Party folks and return the Republican party to what it was many years ago, a conservative alternative to wild eyed fascists in the democrat party.
Allowing yourself to fall pray to deliberate division propaganda is especially easy after so many finally gave in to it after six years of democrat drum beating. You see where that got us, so be on your guard. We don't need false unity on matters that we disagree with establishment types on, but we need unity to the point that we're at least recognizing all the people who labored in the fields of the party for years because they saw no alternative and who many now seem willing to throw out right along with the bathwater.
JMHO
By duplicating the 60-37 scenario with WHITE VOTERS in 2012 we will win again.
All that is stopping us from prevailing is to go 3rd party and split the WHITE vote. We cannot allow that to happen, especially with only 40% of Americans who feel that Obama deserves to be re-elected.
I don't agree.
Palin had already set the table and provided future interview talking points when she said she would run if the conditions in 2012 indicated that she would be the best candidate for the country. Otherwise she would work to find and support the best candidate.
After the Joe Miller fumble, Palin obviously tried to get out in front of the interview tactic of asking candidates if they would support Palin.
All Haley had to do, if she any common sense and graciousness, would be to reference that remark and agree with it. Acknowledging Palin's positive influence on her and other campaign is a given. Palin publicly went after 20 democrats who won in republican districts in 2008 then voted for health care. 18 of them were unseated. Her influence has been proven.
Haley looks like she hasn't done her homework and naively walked into a trap. To me she comes across as wishy-washy and ungracious.
I think there is a war in the republican party. Haley seems to have cast her lot with the SSDD side.
What B.S. This is just the way the liberal journalists frame an article. Haley didn’t endorse Anyone, but since the question was asked about Palin, they get their headline. Once again, it’s just propaganda from the LSM.
“I don’t know why these reporters are running around asking everyone who talks to them, if they support Palin for President.”
In the era of 24 hour cable news, what else would they be doing? All of the major outlets have nothing major on the horizon; I’m sure even Free Republic’s usage spikes during elections. That else would any of them (MSNBCNN or FOX) be talking about?
John McCain agrees. He and Haley are both correct. It’s too early.
McCain: Too early to endorse Sarah Palin for 2012
AP ^ | 2010-10-26
Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:06:34 PM by rabscuttle385
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2615248/posts?page=9
“Using polls to make your point two years out before she has even announced is ridiculous.”
Polls have nothing to do with it; she would have to undergo a major image overhaul, and learn a lot about the world, to have a chance. I think she was great; she helped the party in a big way, and I voted for her as VP. She is unable to handle a hostile press (which dems like BJ Clinton & B. Hussein Obama never have to), and therefore can be a PR disaster.
I don’t know if she’ll ever be on a ballot again, but I think she is a huge asset to the conservative movement. As I’ve said in another post, it is a shame that in all the attacks on her it is overlooked that she was the governor of a state: there are only 50 of them, less than senators or representatives, and that is no easy job for anyone (in any state). She’s already achieved more professionally than most people ever will.
>>> She definitely will not endorse Huck or Newt. They supported other candidates.
I wouldn’t expect her to endorse either but never say never. The roulette wheel is still turning and you can’t predict where it stops. That’s why such endorsement talk is way premature.
“many good candidates are refusing to run in 2012. Here is a rundown of those who have already said they are not running:
1) Michael Bloomberg
2) Mike Pence (running for Governor of Indiana)
3) Jeb Bush
4) Mitch Daniels
5) Scott Brown
6) Chris Christie on many occasions
7) Jim Demint
8) Bobby Jindal
9) General Petraeus
10)Paul Ryan”
Sorry, but this is by and large not a list of “good” candidates for 2012. For example, why in the world would you be disappointed that Michael Bloomberg is not running? This guy has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. Ditto Scott Brown. He was good for a GOP senator from Mass, but all in all he’s a RINO.
Congressmen are never great presidential candidates, so I’m not really too disappointed that Pence and Ryan aren’t running, they’re fine right where they are.
Mitch Daniels recently mentioned that we should consider a national VAT tax. Unless he was talking about doing away totally with the income tax, which I don’t think he was, that statement disqualifies him in my book.
Jeb Bush-too much baggage on immigration, and I’d rather not have another Bush in there at this point, so no big loss not having him run.
General Petraeus-don’t know enough about his domestic politics to give an opinion.
That leaves Jim Demint and Bobby Jindal. These are the only 2 on this list that I would really be excited about if they ran for POTUS.
Why endorse someone you'll be running against for the nomination?
((((PING)))))
That's really too bad since he and I had a pretty friendly posting relationship (except for the Palin shots) going back several years.
I saw someone else refuse to endorse the other day. It was a TV interview, and for some reason I can’t remember who it was, but they said simply that they would be doing no potential candidate any good by endorsing them before they’d even announced. In fact, felt it would hurt them.
I can see that given the nature of our media.
Make no mistake. These are very calculated questions because in the LSM’s mind, if a candidate doesn’t say they’d endorse Palin, it will be spun as she doesn’t have support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.