This populist BS doesn’t work.
We just need someone smart who will advance the conservative message.
If you aren’t moving forward, you are moving backwards.
Republicans haven’t had a purpose for 10 years.
McCain didn’t offer people a reason to vote for the ticket.
Sarah Palin didn’t either.
Voting for them because 0bama was a socialist scored them less votes than John Kerry got when he lost to George Bush 4 years earlier.
Palin offers no solutions to get behind.
That’s what voters want. Ideas they can get excited about.
The feeling that the candidate is going to advance America in some way.
Right now, I believe Americans are clamoring for less government, but at the same time, making the government we keep more streamlined, efficient, and responsive. And more benevolent, less intrusive.
Palin can’t offer policies like that. You know this. She can whip up a crowd with her shrill criticisms of 0bama and other TV celebrities, and create a media circus around her, but she’s not a serious individual and problem solver in the long tradition of American statesmen.
Well, we have a problem. Someone like Romney simply “can’t whip up a crowd.”
and he can’t “connect” either with a crowd or individuals. He’s a stiff.
Here we go again, counterpunch screaming at the top of his lungs about how worthless Sarah Palin is. As I’ve stated before, it’s clear you don’t like her and prefer a more elitist politician.
You, like the liberal democrats, fear Sarah Palin. It’s obvious from your posts that you are afraid she might get the nomination. Quit being such a pussy and start encouraging people like Sarah to enter the arena and bring the values of normal folks to Washington. If she wants to be President, let her run and fail on her own. What possible harm can there be from having more people like Sarah Palin on the national scene?
And neither was Reagan, that B-film actor. Until we let him try, that is.
You've been making a bunch of high-sounding arguments here, like 'the long tradition of American statesmen'. I'd like to know if you consider Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt in that history. I think we should avoid any long tradition that includes such big-government types.
What other long tradition of small-government American statesmen are you thinking of? How about one that includes that B-actor Ronald Reagan? Or the one that includes the backwoods hick Andrew Jackson? Or how about the do-nothing Calvin Coolidge? I think Governor Palin would be ok in that company, rather than anybody labeled a 'statesman' by the historians.
You want a candidate who, two days after being named as VP candidate, can articulate: "We don't want bigger government. We want government that does a few big things and it does them right." - oh, snap!
You have to be kidding. The rats always come up with grandiose solutions like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that promote waste, fraud and abuse with bankrupt financing. The American Clean Energy and Security Act that the rats got yesterday ensures expenive energy and high taxes for a problem that has not existed for a decade, i.e. global warming despite increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.
What problem do we have that wasn't caused by populism/socialism? Sarah can say that with the authority of Maggie Thatcher. Palin can say that when you find yourself just in a hole, stop digging! "It's," in a long tradition from Carter vs. Reagan, Giuliani vs. Dinkins, Cuomo vs. Pataki, etc. The left makes a complete mess. The right gets a chance to correct.
Oh yes he did....her name was Sarah.