Posted on 02/26/2011 1:48:26 PM PST by pissant
Yesterday Ann Coulter might have unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, let it be known that Sarah Palin will not run for president in 2012. Everyone has made their own best guess on whether or not Palin will run, but Coulter may have access to more "insider knowledge" given her position as an established conservative commentator. In an interview with Sean Hannity last night Coulter said that she "loved" Palin, but also took a slight verbal jab at the former half-term governor of Alaska. After praising Palin, Coulter goes on to say that she does not think that Palin will run for president. Hannity counters by saying that Coulter is "unnecessarily narrowing the field" and that Palin has publicly said she is still considering a run. It is at this point that Coulter reveals, "I think she's saying that because she also said Newt Gingrich told her you can get higher speaking fees if you pretend you are running for President." At this point things get awkward as Hannity tries to cut Coulter off (video to the left).
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Ann just jumped the shark.
What a hoser she is.
Ann is so jealous of Palin. Ann has no family. Ann has no boobs. Ann has nothing to compare.
So sorry, Ann.
Coulter jumped the shark a long time ago...
A few weeks ago she was on Hannity talking about how the GOP shouldn’t focus on the repeal of Obamacare...
Hannity was pretty sly about his comments. It bumped him up a bit in my book...
I heard Coulter on Hannity’s radio show a few weeks ago talking about how the GOP shouldn’t repeal Obamacare...
I don’t trust Coulter at all.
A 2012 presidential campaign is going to take about a billion dollars. The Democrats have already stolen many times more than that, and will have plenty to waste on zero, or whoever they choose to fill his vacuum.
So, one of the major questions for 2012 is, "which potential candidate can raise a billion dollars, and do so when America and Americans are already financially stretched to the limit?"
I'm betting that Sarah Palin will raise half that amount in the first month after she announces, and more than enough in the coming months to make up the balance.
The only one with a blind spot is you. Gov Palin is one of the most quailified candidates in the field. On top of her quailifications she is the only Reaganite of the possible candidates.
btw I do like how you have now come out and stated clearly you do not think that Gov Palin is quailified instead of being “concerned she might mess up” Your present post shows the lie your orginal post was. And that you were simply a “concerned fake” pushing a DNC/gop establishment talking point.
LOL. Really? FR??? That’s as valid as the C-PAC Ron Paul poll.
I like Cain. Don’t think he can win, but in terms of policies, I think he’s probably superior in “conservative reliability” to Palin, yes.
You just said there was no human solution. You contradict yourself.
You just said there was no human solution. You contradict yourself.
Right now, I’m not seeing a candidate who has the positions, the organization, and the broadbased support to compete. But Cain is good, and as good as any.
All along---and people here dismiss this consistently---I've said that Palin so far does NOT have the organization, nor does she appear to appoint really good people to staff her organization. I think that's a serious flaw, and one that would doom a national campaign. (She might get through a primary, but I'm not even sure about that).
The thing that keeps showing up in these polls---again, which Freepers want to dismiss---is that for whatever reason, Huckabee has very strong support among the "social conservatives" and Palin does not. Now, someone might want to actually try to figure out why that is, and what she's doing wrong that such a seemingly natural core base is NOT attracted to her. And this is just my guess, but it goes back to the illegitimate grandchild, the daughter's divorce, the "Dancing with the Stars," and the whole TV "reality show" approach. But maybe it's something else we aren't seeing and that is why, rather than constantly attacking the messengers, it might behoove some supporters of Palin to try to figure this out and, if there is indeed any way to correct, fix the problem. Because if I'm right and it is her family, well, you can't change that. But it might be nice to know going into an election, even a primary.
Please don’t do straw polls. Everyone here rightly guffawed when Ron Paul “won” the CPAC straw poll. While many polls have their problems, straw polls are more than meaningless.
Fine. Please identify the polls that you say we ignore.
Strange how the only one that is aware of talking points is you. I’ve clearly stated in other posts that while agree with Palin on most issues I don’t want her as my president. She simply is not presidential material IMO. Every single poll seems to suggest that I’m in the majority with that opinion.
I have family that lives in Alaska that knows the Palin’s. In fact my step dads brother is pretty close with Sarah’s parents and they even admit that her support within her own state has fallen dramatically. Her approval there is below 50% I believe.
Like I have said before, if she wins the primary I’ll certainly support her but I don’t think she would have any chance at victory. She is too toxic to too many people.
He must not be too anti gun.. he commuted that guys sentence.
Hey, you are the one who stated that Palin was in the money game just to finance her campaign, not me. Now I guess you have thought better....good for you.
>>You just said there was no human solution. You contradict yourself.<<
No. I was responding to this comment:
>>Problems are always too big for a human solution<<
My point is that not all problems are too big for a human solution. And to elaborate, by “human” solution, I mean a solution that does not require war, etc. And even then, it is not a solution but merely something we are forced into, like WWII via Pearl Harbor, or the attack on Poland in September of 1939.
When I say there is no human solution for our problems I am thinking of the Titanic problem. There was no human solution. They couldn’t get everyone to use their teacups in unison to bail. They couln’t weld the rips at sea. All they could do was efficiently man the lifeboats - and there were not enough of them - because the ship was going down.
That is where I am going with “no human solution”. It’s too late for that. The problem is too big. There is no human solution to the problem. We will simply have to live with the consequences. Like the Alaska MD-80 after the Jackscrew broke, the plane is still in the air, but it is gonna end badly.
Our jackscrew broke in 2006 and we’ve been on a plunge to the earth ever since. And it broke because the pilots had been applying pressure beyond it’s design specs for 100 years and it finally gave way. Fortunately we were flying high, so it is taking a long time to hit the ground. But hit we will.
Posted by pissant I see
Her earning the money has enabled her to run a primary campaign and be competitive with people like mitt. Cut that how you want but the facts are the facts. Campaigns cost money. Money that donors and PACs can at times not cover. All successful candidates have to be wealthy to be able to run a POTUS primary and general campaign. Palin is now in that group thanks to her efforts over the last 2 years. either you don't want to see that or are too blinded to see it but do continue putting evil motives behind a capitalist. It is fun to watch supposed conservatives cutting on someone for making money....money that ALL candidates will be required to have to run a campaign.... Palin thanks to her shrewd management and decisions now finds herself with a very big warchest to wage a POTUS campaign something she was unable to do in july of 2009.
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.