Posted on 08/19/2011 9:56:45 PM PDT by Gargantua
“Hell, there are guys who sit round all day in their underpants yelling at the TV who are more Presidential than Obama”
Thank you...I think..
Cheers!
For decades, conservatives have been told we must "go along to get along" and that we had to compromise our principles so the squishy RINOs could get elected.
Once they had enough votes, they said, THEN we'd see action.
We had all that under Dubya. Didn't get much except a porous open border and the complete devaluation of the GOP brand to the point that Obama -- an unknown, with 1/2 term in the US Senata -- very nearly won in a landslide.
Very nearly, that is, but for Our Lady of The Tundra, She of the Immaculate Convention.
If she loses, she's finished, you say?
If she runs now and WINS, and brings along a considerable Tea Party delegation in Congress with coat-tails, we can break the back of Socialism in the US and roll back all the gains the left has made since the 1960s.
Time for you RINOs and Moderates and Concern Trolls to get in the barrel and swallow.
Cheers!
>>>a political earthquake measuring twenty on the one-to-ten Richter scale.
An incredibly apt corrolary. Politically speaking, as well as popularity-wise, Sarah is the daughter of a "marriage" between Reagan and Thatcher, although I firmly believe that in this case especially, the product is far greater than the sum of the two combined parts.
I know what political heresy it appears to even think such a thing, but that is if you only consider what she has accomplished thus far. And even then, she makes a good argument for being their significant betters.
Reagan did what he did in an era of hard-to-deny moment for the USA. We were in an identity crisis and economic tailspin, and The Russian Bear was sabre rattling and creating at least the illusion of being a hugely imminent threat.
Maggie, in her time, was similarly cast as the avenging angel of our Anglo cousins who had their own need for a National heroine. She was perfect.
But the world without England, while a very different and lesser place, would still have hope... as long as there was an America. The world absent America's influence; our leadership, our message of freedom, prosperity, personal worth, and most of all, an ever-present reminder of God's amazing providence... I'm not at all sure that would be a world worth trying to survive.
Sarah Palin's task, and ours (should we decide to accept it), will be to bring back from the brink of socialist subjugation a country which, if restored, gives back to the World a clearly defined râison d'etre, not to mention a pumped, musclebound cousin to back them up should Muhammed, or Ivan, or any other would-be bully decide it's again time to flex their ropey muscles.
That's right. Our job is to save the world. Let's git 'er done.
;^\
In fact, we have to assume it will happen and be prepared to deal with it when it does. These are snakes, vermin, scumbags with no morals and barely any souls with whom we are dealing. The most despicable ploy you or I could possibly imagine, they've already discarded as being too milquetoast.
;^\
A coffee-spitter. Nice! LMAO!!!!!!!!
Get's my vote for FReeper "Quote of the Day."
8^D
This is what they mean when they say, "If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth."
Outstanding reply. Say no more.
;^\
I do remember Reagan. I remember that Reagan had two terms as the governor of the largest state in the Union before he ran for president. I remember that he lost the first run for the nomination. I remember that Reagan started the 1980 primaries as the front-runner, and I remember that he started the general election almost 20 points ahead of Carter. I remember that Reagan never had the kind of negative personal approval ratings that Palin has had over the past three years. Even most people who didn't want Reagan to be president liked him as a person.
None of those things are true of Palin. Palin also doesn' have the record of decades of writing and talking about conservative principles that Reagan had, nor has she earned all of the political favors that people owed Reagan (though she has been working on it).
The problem is one of numbers. The Dems start with about 40% of the vote. Palin starts with about 20% - the most conservative part of the GOP base. Unless she can get the rest of the GOP and the independents, she has a very hard row to hoe.
It is that demographic where she scores the highest. Put down the psilocyben.
Sarah has an approval rating of 38% and disappoval of 55% among independents. If that is the highest she scores, she is in more trouble than I thought.
As I implied, I fully understand what Sarah’s doing, but as a resident of an area that went for Hitlery 3-1, I wish that someone would strip the bark off this vile woman as well. I know, Sarah is hoping to play upon the simmering anger that her supporters still carry, but any positive talk about Rotten is either stupid or sleight of hand. And I know that Sarah’s a brainiac, so it must be the latter. *Someone* in the GOP had better start ripping Rotten’s abysmal record as SoS, just in case she’s the nominee. Bob
Am currently a member of our GOP county Central Committee, being elected last year as one of many in SoCal coming from the Tea Parties. FYI, a majority of the county RCC's are now majority Tea Party people, and as such essentially control CAGOP. Sure, that's kind of like having a minority interest in CA politics, but CA still has a large voting voice in the convention.
The CA delegates will vote for Sarah, and that will go a long way toward her nomination. Further, it is my experience that more than 75% of indies, 95% of GOP, and pay attention here: perhaps more than 20% of Dems will vote for the GOP candidate in CA....and probably help tremendously in the down-ballot as well. Can the GOP win CA next year? who knows, but we believe that it'll be a lot closer than any time since Clintoon was elected!
our main focus, however, is getting just a bit more control over the state legislature. We have barely enough to stop fiscal measures in the assembly, and all our people there now the have huevos to do it! CA will return to its century-long conservative roots, it'll just take three cycles or so to get there.
BTW, do you have any idea whose bumper sticker I proudly display on my van? Why it’s one for MILT ROMNEY! Just kidding; it’s Gov. Palin’s, OF COURSE! Who else is there to consider?
This is the first time I’ve been accused of suffering from PDS!! lol Bob
Wrong. I actually looked it up before I posted. Reagan was the frontrunner for the 1980 GOP nomination from the outset. Bush gave him a bit of a run at the outset, but Reagan was the statistical favorite. While polls in 1978 (before the hostage crisis and before the primaries) showed Carter with a big lead over Reagan, right after the GOP Convention Reagan led Carter. The rest of the campaign, the two were close in the polls, with the lead changing hands several times. Just before the debate, Carter had a slight lead.
I'm also certain that before New Hampshire, Reagan was out of money and far from the front runner. I also remember Reagan only surpassed Carter after the second debate.
You are presenting a history that never happened.
In Sept. 1979, a CA Field poll had Reagan losing by 30+ points to Ted Kennedy in his own state and barely even with Carter in CA.
In January, 1980, Harris had a poll showing Reagan losing by 34 points to Carter.
In March, 1980, Harris showed that Gerald Ford would beat both Carter and Reagan. That same month Time Mag published a story citing a poll showing Reagan behind by 25 points. I don't have the link handy but it's been cited several times here. I'll find it if necessary.
It is true that polls were close and fluctuating during the general election campaign. 10 days before the election, Reagan was a few points behind and trending down. The debate sealed Carter's fate.
Your recollections are correct.
Okay, let's start here - April 1979 - Reagan, Carter tied.
"Although he did not formally declare his candidacy until November 1979, Reagan made it clear to his inner circle from the moment of the 1976 convention that he intended to again seek the presidency. He was the choice of rank-and-file Republican voters in public opinion polls although many establishment GOP politicians thought he was too conservative and perhaps too old to win the White House."
"Reagan left the Republican National Convention in mid-July 1980 with a commanding lead over Carter in the polls. The race tightened considerably, however, over the ensuing months, in part because Democrats closed ranks after Carter was renominated in mid-August at the Democratic Convention in New York. Reagan's early stumbles also aided the Carter comeback." American President: A Reference Resource
The truth is that the 1980 election bounced all over the place until after the conventions, and then it settled into a fairly narrow range. However, there were at least some times in the year or so before the convention that Reagan was ahead of Carter - I haven't seen Palin get anywhere close to being ahead of Obama. As a matter of fact, she went from a 24% to 38% approval-disapproval rating in May of 2010 to a 38% to 55% approval-disapproval rating in March of 2011. That means that as people have gone from undecided, they have gone almost 2-1 into the disapproval category - and there are only about 7% still undecided! The RCP average of polls shows her down over 17 points against Obama - the worst of all of the Republican candidates they have polled.
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.