Posted on 12/08/2009 9:44:37 AM PST by Lou Budvis
Allahpundit has this in the headlines, and it’s worth having the audio up here to catch the heavy qualifications Sarah Palin gives Lars Larson in this radio interview from last week. Larson asks whether she’d be willing to launch an independent run for the presidency if Palin was dissatisfied with the GOP, and while she didn’t say no, the conditions she lays down to remain within the Republican Party seem rather easy to meet (via The Right Scoop):
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
“IMO it is rather stupid to chose a candidate based on so called electability.”
Yes, we wouldn’t want to vote for someone electable because then we couldn’t whine on the rubble when we lose.
Perot was no conservative.
And Dole was?
Is your life really all about extremes with no common sense?
Look what the GOP and their/YOUR electability doctrine got us in the last 50 years.
Reagan didn’t start out electable but showed himself to be the superior candidate anyway. He was an actor and divorced, not what people thought the President should be.
Way too often the false issue of electability eliminates solid candidates because the GOP doesn’t have the balls to get behind a doctrinally sound candidate in favor of a populist.
Name the great GOP presidents since WWII?
How many candidates were electable vs doctrinally solid?
Dole did not want to go door to door confiscating guns, and his family has not won awards for their Planned Parenthood membership and fund raising.
When was the two term California Governor Reagan, that almost defeated a sitting President for the GOP nomination in 1976 not electable?
Help me out...is that a false dichotomy or a non sequitor?
Or just a plan load of horsecrap?
I won't again recount how the GOP made the historically moronic move by nominating McCain. The GOP brought us Obama. Almost as if it was intentional.
So pardon me if I don't have any enthusiasm left for them.
How moronic is it to have open primaries? What is the point?
Want a solid Conservative? Check our Chuck Baldwin. I used to know him. One of the finest men I’ve ever met.
Totally unelectable because he is too principled for the vast majority of people and because too many people would be embarrassed to be associated with someone as Conservative and Patriotic as he is.
And that is a shame.
I don’t really give a hoot if someone is GOP first or not but I won’t hesitate to point it out and have no obligation to respect that position.
For me, two equally attractive candidates, one GOP and one Third Party I won’t vote GOP.
Sarah going third party would be the end of her political career. She won’t do that. Sarah is a team player.
He was a heck of a lot more conservative than Perot. Of course that wasn’t good enough for the 100 percenters and the Buchanan Brigades.
Chuckie Baldwin? Please. The guy is an anti-American joke.
You must not have read the book, because that does not come through at all. She beat a corrupt GOP incumbent for the Governors seat in Alaska ( and she doesn't say anything bad about him personally ) and decries politicians taking liberties in general, but she doesn't indicate any hate for the GOP establishment at all. She is very complimentary about John McCain and only indirectly critical of the political operatives that ran his campaign. She very solidly comes out for limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual rights, and associates these values with the GOP.
You are a pantload and not fit to carry his laundry.
Let’s see....he’s an advid Constitutionalist and ardently pro 2A and definitively pro life.
And you’re an FR newbie who wouldn’t recognize Dr. Baldwin in a crowd of two.
Is it a mere coincidence that 'S=A=R=A=H' spelled backwards is "harrass"? :)
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.