Posted on 11/25/2010 9:10:56 AM PST by roses of sharon
Better without the definition.
rats lie. Run Sarah.
Romney is a lying abortionist like George Tiller.
When Mitch Daniels calls for a unilateral “truce”, a surrender, on “social issues”, he is announcing that he is no conservative.
“...Accomplishments that garnished her a whopping...”
Garnered, not garnished.
“The squishy middle is the prime target of the MSM’s attacks on Sarah.”
Yes, but the demonrats can easily overdo attacks on a woman. A woman is heir to sympathy from men because...well, because she’s a woman, and from women because...well because she’s a woman. And because these attacks are not “civil,” the squishtards are likely to resent them on those grounds alone.
If the demonrats “take the gloves off,” they could generate a lot of sympathy for the ‘Cuda in the squishy middle.
“the very fact that there are so many here who bash her (despite subscribing to her views) should be of great concern regarding her viability as a candidate.”
(When I allege the following, I get about the same response that I got in the early 1980s when I accused the lamestream misleadia of a leftist bias.)
I think that it is possible to hack the FR software and either create an account with whatever “member since” date you want, or at least to hack the “member since” date on existing accounts.
I think that a lot of the stuff we see here—such as Palin-bashing—comes from moles with fake “member since” dates. I also think there are more moles than practically anyone imagines.
The lamestream misleadia is now acknowledged to be grotesquely biased, and if events play out, I expect my claims about moles to be vindicated as well.
“people have blinders on about Mitt and underestimate his appeal while overestimating Palin’s appeal to non-ideologues.”
1. I don’t think so. I think that many here correctly understand that a failure to deny Comrade Romney the nomination and get Governor Palin elected would be disastrous. The effort must be made, even if the odds look slim (Which they don’t, to me).
2. What are an idealogue and a non-idealogue? Does that mean something other than “person of principle” and “person who will get in bed with Evil, perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of weakness, or perhaps because corrupt”?
“Many MANY of us are tired of the Elites and RINOs calling ALL the shots for the GOP since 1988.”
I’ll have a keg of that, please. I’m not voting for any more RINO candidates that the GOP elite hand-picks. EVER.
Throw away my vote, they say? As though a vote for Bob Dole wasn’t wasted? As though a vote for President George H. W. Bush in 1992 wasn’t wasted? As though a vote for John McCainiac wasn’t wasted?
I think the only votes I ever wasted were for annointed GOP candidates.
I’ll be voting for the person I prefer from now on, thank you, and if the GOP doesn’t nominate that person, they won’t have my vote.
Don’t LISTEN TO YOUR ENEMIES; Run Sarah
(Fixed it)
Second, to always put every discussion into the evil-non-evil category is just ridiculous. Sarah Palin is no more "goodness" than Romney is "evil." I'd trust either with my children, and (with the right checks-and-balances) I'd trust either with the government. Romney's inclinations are much further left than I like---but so were McCain's and the question is still up in the air as to whether we're better off with Obama than McCain (in some ways, yes, because he demonstrated the end result of Marxism). But in other ways, the NORKs could launch something at us immediately and I'd rather have Juan in there than Barry. So you can make an argument either way.
The big difference is NOT between Palin or DeMint and Romney or Huckabee (whom I really don't like), but between those who inherently love America (even when they have policies I don't agree with) and those who don't. And I'd put all four on one side and Barry on the other.
Palin seems to do better in polls that don't actually have her as a candidate. Certainly the conservative blogosphere loves her, and they hate Romney---although Ann Coulter, as I recall, endorsed Mitt in 2008.
In most head-to-head polls between Palin and Obama, she comes off worse than anyone else. Now, that's NO reason to reject her, but it is something to note. In 2008, McCain came off better against all Dems, and look at what happened there.
Palin can win in 2012---indeed, as I keep saying, it's possible that Obama will become Herbert Hoover by 2012 and any Republican can win. But I'm not ready yet to just hand her the nomination. I still don't think we've seen the 2012 candidate on our side yet.
They keep saying she's a polarizing figure. If liberals agree with that, it's only because SNL ridiculed her week after week after week. NBC was on a relentlessly planned mission to destroy her credibility.
Thanks
“No, and your very questions suggest you still have blinders on.”
Buncombe.
“Comrade” ... really? Do you think there are 20% of REPUBLICANS (let along Americans) who think Mitt is a communist?”
Don’t know, don’t care. Don’t see why you thought that question was worth asking. Oh, wait, now I see: you were trying to discredit me personally by stretching for the worst interpretation imaginable.
Romneycare is certainly far enough to the left to justify a bit of hyperbole.
“If so, you’re beyond help.”
Bite me. Who the hell do you think you are to be passing such judgments?
“Second, to always put every discussion into the evil-non-evil category is just ridiculous.”
And to fail to see the eternal conflict between good and evil is stupid as a sack of dirt.
“Sarah Palin is no more “goodness” than Romney is “evil.”
Well, I see why blinders were on your mind. Here’s a clue: All leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the mass murders of Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot, is of and from Satan.
Governor Palin is much further to the side of good than Romney. Socialized medicine, as with all socialist thought, is Evil. Capital “E” Evil.
“I’d trust either with my children, and (with the right checks-and-balances) I’d trust either with the government.”
Trust Romney? Trust a man who implemented socialized medicine? Hmmm, what’s worse than folly? The total absence of judgment, perhaps?
“Romney’s inclinations are much further left than I like”
And yet you would support him in a run for the presidency. Amazing.
“but so were McCain’s and the question is still up in the air as to whether we’re better off with Obama than McCain”
Staggering. Just staggering.
“So you can make an argument either way.”
Not while remaining within the bounds of sanity, you can’t.
“And I’d put all four on one side and Barry on the other.”
The apparent fact that Romney is to some degree less evil than the Kenyan Commie in no way puts him in the same ball park with Governor Palin.
It’s too bad that you can’t see what we have in Governor Palin. You might want to be less outspoken about that, though, because it could be really embarrassing if at some point you did get it.
“They keep saying she’s a polarizing figure.”
The use of the phrase “polarizing figure” just means that the left really, really hates her.
I don’t agree with Mark McKinnon here. He seems to have first made up his mind he didn’t want Sarah Palin to be President, and then thought up excuses for his opinion.
I didn’t read one good reason she shouldn’t run.
“I bet if you go ask 10 people on the street whom they’d prefer, they’d say Mitt.”
Sure they would /sarc/ and if you tell them a little about Mitt (like RomneyCare), then nine out of those tem will say no.
You know as well as I do that, even without the knowledge of Romney’s odious record in Massachusetts, he is still behind Palin . (and those head to head national polls mean nothing now.) Bob Dole was ahead of Clinton 50-45 in early 1996 and lost quite badly.
Romney is a sure loser. Palin is a sure winner. Look at the electoral college. And realize this election will be about turnout. it is not about reaching for the middle. That kind of logic produced losers like Ford, Bush and Dole. The reverse of that logic gave us landislides in 1980, 1984 and 1988.
The GOP has not had a landslide since Regan’s third term. The Dems have had three (1992, 1996 and 2008). Your “nominate the mushy moderate strategy” is empirically flawed. We are not going to follow it this time.
“I still don’t think we’ve seen the 2012 candidate on our side yet.”
Well, you are dreaming then. The GOP never nominates darkhorses. Hasn’t happened since 1940.
It will be one of the frontrunners, Palin, Romney, Gingrich or Huckabee. On that you can count. It will only be one of the “darkhorses” if none of these run, which is nextto impossible.
“Palin can win in 2012-—indeed, as I keep saying, it’s possible that Obama will become Herbert Hoover by 2012 and any Republican can win.”
Can win? Right now, Obama is the only behind the eight ball, not Palin. His numbers in Ohio are in the toilet. Indiana, North Carlina and Virginia have already returned to their red “roots” based on 2010 and past electoral history.
Wisconsin is moving hard red with a liberal icon liike Feingold upended.
How about you chart us a path for victory for Obama against Palin state by state. Which states will he take from those carried by McCain in 2008?
And in light of 2010, how is he going to protect states like Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, among others, all of which went bright red in 2010?
All the pre-campaign national polls in the world are not going to save him from the Electoral college arithmetic, which will be even grimmer for him (and better for Palin) after the 2010 census).
Tell us how he gets to 270 because I am having a hard time seeing it.
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.