Gallup: Palin top choice of Republicans to run in 2012
posted at 2:06 pm on November 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
They’re asking whether various candidates should run, not who the nominee should be, but it’s a fair proxy for enthusiasm. 67 percent say yes to the ‘Cuda, 62 to Romney, 61 to Huck. No one else cracks 50. Among conservative Republicans, it’s Palin 73, Huck 65, Mitt 64; among moderates and liberals, Mitt 59, Palin 48, Huck 46. Based on those numbers, it’s actually Romney who’s best positioned to unite the party.
The more I think about it, the more skeptical I am that all three will run. Even I’m not pessimistic enough to believe the recession will last until 2012, which means The One will inevitably be credited with having succeeded in his chief task by the time his term ends. Huckabee will run anyway because he’s hot to remake the party in his image, but Romney doesn’t strike me as eager for another expensive primary war just to be a sacrificial lamb in the general. My hunch is he’ll run only if Obama looks vulnerable and, even then, only if there are enough social cons running to split the base among them so that his strength with moderates is magnified. (It worked for McCain this year, didn’t it?) If he doesn’t run, I assume Pawlenty will throw in and try to capture those moderates with his “Sam’s Club” rhetoric. He won’t win, but he desperately needs a higher profile if he’s going to make a serious run in the future. (It worked for Huckabee this year, didn’t it?)
But never mind that. Check out the numbers for Newt, Jindal, and poor, poor Jeb, alone among all candidates with 60+ percent urging him not to run because of the scarlet “B” he bears upon his chest. I’m surprised to see Gingrich at -1 overall and shocked to find Jindal at -2, although he’ll improve of course as his fame grows. What has he done to warrant more people opposed to him running than in favor? Maybe that exorcism thing made a wider impression than we realize. Or maybe this is a case where the answer isn’t a fair proxy for party enthusiasm: People may have concluded that he’s simply too young and needs to wait until 2016. For the record, he insisted just yesterday that he’s not running. Of course, he was in Iowa at the time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Romney will run if the circumstances at that time favor him. He is very bright and not wasteful
Palin will run if called. I would be happy to see her again
Huck will run if Romney runs to protect America from Mormons. Otherwise, it will depend on what Huck does to himself at FOX over the next few years. In general, sitting on a news commentary show for years wipes you out as a candidate except for the fringe voters.
Jindal is keeping a low profile now, in the Obama tradition. That means I have no trust to give him yet. He has to show something other than strategy to make me trust him.
Gingrich cannot be revived. To this day I feel he mishandled the hoopla that lost him his position in Congress. Losing his position was not the loss, he lost opportunities to come back fighting. He still mishandles it, because it does not go away until he is forceful in talking about it. Right now he has the demeaner of a mouse scurrying out to throw newsletters and then retreating
Anyone connected to the RINO National Committee carries a taint. Forget Crist who did so well for his immigration buddie McCain. Pawlenty not.
There will be four years to prove who will carry baggage for the RINO train of McCain and Lieberman. This presidency will test who is conservative and who is not. At the end of the four years (or sooner for the House) many will be proven out.
Unfortunately because the DEMs have a high vote count when including McCain and his gang, many in the RINO party will be able to vote against DEM programs so they can maintain a pretense of being conservatives for the sake of re relection
entagor on November 23, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Would Huckleberry Hound have to give up his job as talk show host on FNC if he ran for POTUS again? Decisions, decisions.
I still don’t understand why a syrupy ’sweet’ ex-televangelist who teamed up with McAmasty to keep Romney from the nomination
is so popular among conservatives. Someone please explain?
Christine on November 23, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Matoko_Chan:
WTF are you talking about “Obama is charismatic and capable?”
No one watching his infomercial. 82% of Americans polled said they were sick of seeing Obama’s face all the time and were relieved the election was over. He most likely wouldn’t have won against McCain until the financial crisis. The biggest argument against your claim is that Obama has never done anything in his life but run for higher office.
He spent his first term in the Senate running for President. None of his campaign surrogates could name a legislative accomplishment or any other for that matter.
We all know he’s a fraud and a NPD basketcase, and he was put into power to do the bidding of corrupt people in our government, which is all he’s ever done his whole life since he took his first piece of candy from Frank Marshall Davis.
Get a f#c king grip and quit clogging up Sarah Palin threads with your irrational devotion to the “Present”-elect.
chunderroad on November 23, 2008 at 1:52 PM
lol, dude, step away from the crackpipe.
Obama could never have been elected this time around except for the econoplaypse because he is BLACK.
The stock market jumped 500 pts on Obama’s treas sec appointment, member?
If you ever want to win again, you have to be realistic about how Obama won.
Why do more people want Palin to run than Jindal?
Because Jindal is BROWN.
In 2020 caucasian becomes a minority.
Bettah get your act together.
Acknowledge what Obama did and steal his best stuff.
Palin could only have been elected on someone’s coattails.
Like McCains. She was supposed to attack female votes– by Nov 1 60% of women under 50 had an unfavorable opinion of her.
Now the electorate will force her vetting.
Now her only path to the Whitehouse lies through a trackless forest of hostile media vetting and intense merciless scrutiny in the eye of the electorate.
Sure, the base likes her….but the base is shrinking radically as a percentage of the electorate.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 2:16 PM
And….another thing Palin has to consider.
In 2016 she will be post-menopausal.
I suspect a lot of her appeal will whither with her physical appearance.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Here is your basic problem.
Objectivity.
For people that like Palin, she can’t do anything wrong.
For people that don’t like her, she can’t do anything right.
Unfortunaltely, there are a lot more people that don’t like her than that do like her.
And the “don’t like her” curves slope up.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM
“Force her vetting”? Get real. She’s the most vetted candidate in quite a while. “Could only have been elected on someone’s coattails”? It was McCain’s coattails that actually got in her way. “Menopausal”? Aside from being a sexist remark (though I’m not too fond of PC stuff), post-menopausal women can be quite lovely too, you know.
Anyway, from a story HA has linked to above:
Not bad for such a hated, divisive figure.
ddrintn on November 23, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I am speaking truth.
Palin only had 2 months of media scrutiny and she couldn’t withstand that.
She can never be elected on pure base support, the base is shrinking.
Her outings on CNN, the governors conference, and at the turkeyfarm haven’t won her any votes.
In one generation whites become a minority.
The GOP simply can’t win ever again based on voters that like Palin.
So how does she reshape her image?
For one thing, she will have to wait 8 years at least for another generation of youth that haven’t seen Palin defined as a punchline.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM
The stock market always rebounds on Fridays, and when Obama made an announcement, people looking for bargains bought. It was Wall Street responding to a “bailout expert” appointed.
This guy will pump the remaining 350 billion into the financial companies, insurance and autos….and the market will rally until mid spring, when earnings come out for first quarter with projections that suck – and then the market will realize the bailouts only delay collapse and the bottom will truly fall out to around 5500.
As for how Obama got elected, the majority of Americans saw him as better for the economy. It was folk wisdom pushed by the MSM more than anything factually based. Any generic Dem would have done better than Obama, but his race benefited him in one way. McCain would not attack him or the Dems in their Community Reinvestment Act’s role in the collapse. It would have seemed racist. So, McCain imploded, fought House Republicans and voted for the bailout.
Americans will care very little about the color of Jindal’s skin. (Being a woman is obviously more of a handicap.) But I have seen Jindal speak, and he doesn’t have Sarah Palin’s star quality. People are fascinated by her, for better or worse; she has been vetted and is already iconic. If she can take advantage of the next three years and do great things for her state as Governor, she is the likely frontrunner.
chunderroad on November 23, 2008 at 3:57 PM
You seriously need to stop thinking about ‘12 now. Tearing down Palin to make way for your candidate does more to hurt the GOP than help anyone. You’ll make a lot of enemies here, if you persist in parroting Democratic attacks on Gov. Palin.
chunderroad on November 23, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Wow, more chunderrheading.
On September 12 the market dropped 600 points. We should have had a recession then. Instead GW told Americans to go shopping, and colluded with Greenspan to slash interest rates so Americans could use their homes as ATMs.
Recognizing the coming flip on race demographics, GW began a campaign of hispandering on immigration AND on MORE deregulation of mortgage qualls, so grateful hispanic homeowners would vote republican.
The new domain of sketchy mortgage-backed instruments was instantly colonized by the kind of “sharp dealers” that free market capitialism encourages.
McCain couldn’t play the race card openly, because of his campaign manager, Steve Schmidt.
Schmidt slimed McCain in the 2000 primary with racist innuedo about the McCain’s adopted Bangaldeshi daughter being John’s mixed race lovechild.
And McCain hired him to write Palin’s pallin around with terrorists speech.
So Schmidt race-baiting was a can of whupass McCain couldn’t afford to open.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Nah, I’m not tearin down Palin…..I don’t need to.
I just want a little honest selfexamination.
I’m still a registered republican, but only because of Jim Manzi and Reihan Salaam, really.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I agree and anyone who has paid attention to this election cycle ought to be able to recognize that simple fact. Making snarky remarks about a candidate being menopausal only reinforces how much sexism is entrenched in our culture. I am as anti-PC as any red-blooded conservative, but it’s hard to overlook the obvious. Of course, I blame other women — and the traditional left-wing feminist establishment in particular — as much and perhaps more for keeping women from advancing in politics, in business, whatever. The kind of catty, backbiting behavior we’ve endured from the likes of Campbell Brown, women within the campaign, etc. is responsible and sadly not surprising. Nor is the alleged unfavorable opinion of female voters that matoko_chan cites. You would think we women would WANT to see other women get ahead. It helps all of us. But unfortunately we are unduly preoccupied with the “competition” as we see it, and that’s why we’re still marking time for the most part. I mean, why does no one question what kind of FATHER a man can be if he chooses to run for higher office? Why are there no AP photos of Joe Biden’s shoes? Why are there no websites dedicated to “nailing” Obama like there are Sarah Palin?
I hope Sarah runs on 2012. If she does, I will be working for her campaign. But the assertion that people would prefer her over Jindal based on her skin color is absurd. We just proved this year that color matters less to the American electorate than gender.
NoLeftTurn on November 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Nah, just that moderates, independents, youth and teh college-educateds are colorblind. Republicans have a problem still. That is why we lost.
:)
Someone else’s shoes.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I really don’t think Palin has the staying power to make it as the leading republican in 2012. She is going to be a flash in the pan I’m afraid….unless she can garner the support of those party kingmakers which I think are not going for her. Romney et al will bury her political career by then. Where is Saint Ronnie when we need him?
kanda on November 23, 2008 at 7:24 PM
If you seriously believe that Obama was a better candidate than McCain, you have no right calling yourself a Republican. Accusing the rest of your party of racism sounds straight out of the Democratic playbook, too. So cut the “we” nonsense.
It is beyond stupid saying that Bush’s proposed immigration was pandering to “brown people,” because that was the cool thing to do. Illegal immigrants don’t care about our laws, voting in our country or any of the other supposed perks of citizenship. They came here for jobs, and they could claim EIC from filing taxes. They get free healthcare in our ERs, and their kids can go to our schools for free. When the Dems promise even more free stuff, that’s a strategy we should not and cannot compete with.
If Jindal has an interesting idea for healthcare, let’s see how it works in Louisiana. That is how we compete with the Democrats — with ideas not with token minorities. The GOP should be a big tent party of ideas.
Your claim that Greenspan and 911 caused a financial crisis 8 years later is nothing short of breathtakingly stupid. As for your claim that Bush encouraged liars loans to win the Hispanic vote, here is a statement from the White House:
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
chunderroad on November 23, 2008 at 7:38 PM
I got a kick out of this little quote on the front page of this post:
Let me fix it:
She may need to be medicated.
kcarpenter on November 23, 2008 at 7:58 PM
kanda, Huge movements are behind Palin… It’s just a matter of the product we endorsing living up to the hype… Hopefully she can fix her image with the book outing and some interview appearances next year.
An Era of Hate on November 23, 2008 at 8:03 PM
See? there yah go with that witch testing again. ;)
The GOP needs every vote, including me and Colin Powell.
lol.
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Lol indeed @ Colin Powell and you. When you vote Republican, as well as register as one, then we’ll talk.
chunderroad on November 23, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Nobody has a problem with moderates voting for the GOP
we have a problem when the moderates RUN the GOP
joey24007 on November 23, 2008 at 9:14 PM
FTFY, my friend.
benny shakar on November 23, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Go choke on a dick, shakar.
chunderroad on November 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I can’t . . .
I’m waiting for Hucklebee to release the texts of all his older sermons.
So what’s HE hiding?
seanrobins on November 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM
As for the tagline about Kathleen Parker, the only KP I’m interested in seeing is Kirsten Powers!!!
Oh and Benny, many on the democratic side are already having buyers remorse, plus NO POTUS candidate gets elected without votes from people that happen to be Caucasian regardless of gender.
Now run along, the Jets are calling…
Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Oh yeah… we all regret that we didn’t vote for Geezer and Ditz because we read some kooky blog!
benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:12 AM
Moosegodess tops the list for 2012?!
When will the Repubs ever learn?!
Ship of fools
Excerpts:
“There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago.”
“And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.”
“Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasized entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.”
Unless the Pubbies wake up, it’ll be Pres Obama for 8 years and then another Dem for 8 following that! Get a clue!!! What’s wrong with choosing an intelligent candidate for 2012???!!!
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247
Shelby on November 24, 2008 at 5:15 AM
so, has anyone here yet witnessed any weeping palin figures in any kitchen doors or pieces of toast yet?
eh on November 24, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Palin’s support is still going to be there in 4 years – and Obama’s support is going to fade away when they see that whole ‘change’ schtick was nothing more than a load of BS.
Once elected he stuffs his cabinet with Clintonites and Bush’s Sec of Defense.
After 5 years of Democrats criticizing all things Bush and trashing every defense effort put forth by this nation surely they will wake up to the fact that they were fed a sham of a candidate – and I have little doubt he is woefully unprepared to lead this country.
President-elect Token is going to be a one-termer.
The media’s blatant pro-Obama bias is painfully obvious – and equally obvious is the fear that Palin instills in the leftist media.
Their pathetic smears are of little concern 4 years down the road.
Mr Purple on November 24, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Obama’s got a lot of Promises to keep to his devoted followers…He’s going to disappoint them more with each day…The Gay and Lesbian community are already mad, those that thought they’d be getting a tax cut will be next….as for those that think that Obama is going to pay their mortgage…We’ll just see if they are as enthusiastic to elect him in 4 years as they were this year….Paging Jimmy Carter…
BiasedGirl on November 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM
How can this be? The media told us all that she is a dumb ass! I certainly believe everything that the media says and am now left in a quandry. How can I possibly support a Republican that the media doesn’t like? We need to listen to people that gave us John McAmnesty (who the media loved) for the next election! They told us he was great and smart and an isle crosser and brave and maveriky… We can’t go with Palin! The media doesn’t like her! Please Republican Party…pick someone that the media likes…ok! Thanks! Oh yea…and listen to Carl Rove a lot, ok! And they same guys that ran the last election for the Republicans…ok?
sabbott on November 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
LMAO!!! One would only choke on something that one is unfamiliar with and I’m pretty sure inexperience is not a factor in Shakar’s case…
sabbott on November 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I’m hoping someone will come along for the Republicans OTHER than all of those mentioned here.
If not, I hope Gingrich makes a serious run. He can win if he puts his all in to it and uses the strategies he often suggests for others and does not hold back on calling people out (like he did that reporter at the convention).
Unlike some here, I don’t think Gingrich is a RHINO. He has some really great tax ideas even if a little bit radical. He is very capable on foreign policy, and best of all…..liberals hate him!
Goodeye_Closed on November 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Oh and Benny, many on the democratic side are already having buyers remorse
Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Oh yeah… we all regret that we didn’t vote for Geezer and Ditz because we read some kooky blog!
benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:12 AM
From a USA Today article, November 23, 2008…
How long a honeymoon?
The economic crisis has affected not only the speed with which Obama has moved but also the people he has chosen. The leaders of the economic team, the prospective attorney general and secretary of State and even the new White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, all are veterans of the Clinton administration.
That has prompted some dismay and unease on left-leaning websites such as OpenLeft.com, who note Obama ran on a platform of bringing “change” to Washington. Blogger Chris Bowers, for one, calls the lack of “progressives” on the Obama team “extremely disappointing.”
Not to mention dailyKos, Huffpo, Code Pink and others. So, buyers remorse in the sense that if voters wanted a Clinton admin. they would’ve voted for Hillary and not Obama. Btw, it’s really not nice to call our newly elected VPOTUS and POTUS “Geezer” and “Ditz”…Try to show some respect for our duly elected officials, ok?
Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Benny,
Then there is today’s column in the NY Post by Kirsten Powers (see the Headline’s section of HA)
Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Just imagine if People (or Time or any of them) had done the “What I love about Michelle” article on the Palins – if the media had introduced them to the world the same way that the Obamas were, graciously and positively; if Americans could have said YES, this is who I want in the White House, someone with class and genuine love of people, ALL people, not just healthy babies. That just burns me. The media succeeded in getting the person they wanted elected to the most powerful office in the world.
Maybe it won’t matter in the future, because newspapers are dying and some print mags are folding, and internet is only going to gain ground. So maybe this won’t be able to happen again. But even one time is one too many! All I ask is that we get fair coverage of all candidates and that Americans then get to choose.
Oh yeah, and that Huckabee goes away.
eucher on November 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM
The only way I would support Palin running in 2012 is if she were offered up as a sacrificial lamb. If it was clear that Obama was a popular president, then I would encourage her to run in order to allow the truly qualified run in 2016.
This whole thing — throwing moderate Republicans under the bus, in Huckabee fashion, to get Republicans to embrace the social conservative values is going to backfire, I promise you.
I am so ticked. Basically Huckabee and his ilk are asking Republicans, with diverse core values, to leave the party if they’re not on board with creationism, abortion et al. If this is the future of the Republican party, I’m leaving it. If “Conservatives” can’t accept the slightly right of center Republicans, then they’ll be out of power for a long time.
Palin is NOT qualified and she’s just too unsophisticated and amateur for the world stage. If the Republicans nominate her based on pandering to a base that isn’t even large enough to get them elected, then they deserve to lose!
It’s not to say that I want an America of Sodom and Gomorra, but my priorities are that of fiscal conservatism and many hot button social issues are secondary to me at best.
Nobody’s even mentioned about divided the Republican party iis right now. Do the Conservatives really think they can win without moderate Repubs like myself?
Republigal on November 24, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Thanks for the tip, my friend.
Of course, we all know the New York Post is nothing more than Fox News for people who can read.
benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Ms Palin, I’d like to introduce you to overwhelming Presidential favorites Hillary Clinton, George Allen, and Rudy Giuliani. Of course McCain won the nomination because of his uncanny ability to woo moderates.
LevStrauss on November 24, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Badger40 on November 24, 2008 at 1:58 PM
BTW- Romney is clearly the most capable, but I predict he won’t run bcs he knows it’s a lost cause.
Being LDS scares some ignorant people. Mitt learned his lesson.
America will vote for a man bcs he’s black, but they will not vote for a man bcs he’s a Mormon.
Badger40 on November 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM
What’s she going to do, rip out her tongue?
LevStrauss on November 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM
We have President-elect “who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.”
Like the fact that the surge in Iraq worked.
Like the fact that if we invaded Pakistan without their permission, they would cut off supplies to our troops in Afghanistan.
Like the fact that Presidents sitting down with hostile dictators makes them more dangerous (Kennedy’s talk with Krushchev actually INVITED the Cuban missile crisis, and Kennedy’s own advisors admit this).
Like the fact that the current leaders of our allies France, Germany, and Italy are hawkish conservatives.
Like the fact that NAFTA enables us to buy relatively cheap oil from Canada.
Let’s face it–this election turned on the bank failures, not foreign policy. Obama got his start by criticizing the war in Iraq, but how much has the media talked about Iraq lately? It no longer bleeds (thanks to McCain, Bush and Petraeus) so it no longer leads. If this election had been about foreign policy, McCain would have won easily, but he was caught flat-footed when the banks failed, and didn’t explain well enough that it was lending by Fannie and Freddie FORCED BY DEMOCRATS that led to this crisis.
But now the ball is in the Democrats’ court. Two years from now, nobody can blame the Republicans, since Democrats will control both the White House and Congress. If Obama goes through with his socialist campaign promises, we’ll be in Carteresque stagflation and Republicans will hammer that to take back Congress in 2010.
As for foreign policy, Obama could take one of two paths. He could let his ego drive his policies, believing he can talk nice to our enemies, and invite one disaster after another, and voters will be desperate to check his power, and any Republican with foreign-policy credibility would be a shoo-in.
Or Obama could confess his ignorance and let Biden and Hillary drive foreign policy and gird his loins when needed. In the latter case, the economy will drive the next election, and Romney might be the strongest candidate, unless another emerges between now and 2012.
Where does Sarah Palin fit into this? With the widespread recession, energy prices are low right now, so “Drill Baby Drill” seems less important now, but if Obama tries to impose global-warming taxes, energy prices will soon go through the roof, and a more sensible energy policy will become attractive. She, like Jindal or other young conservatives, can learn foreign-policy skills from older, more-experienced hands, and promise to choose them as advisors and Cabinet members if elected.
This whole “brains” issue is very overblown in the snobbish press, which idolizes degrees from “presitigious” colleges over practical knowledge and achievements. Wasn’t Carter supposed to be “brilliant” due to his experience as a sub commander? But what did he do to our economy and foreign policy?
The elite snobs in the liberal press either ignore this or cover it up, but the best education is not obtained from Hahvid or Yale, but the School of Hard Knocks, where Obama is now a freshman, while Palin and Jindal are juniors. Let’s see who graduates first.
Steve Z on November 24, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Oh Snap!
benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 2:17 PM
McCain ran a horrible campaign and he, in fact, did lose a lot of the younger moderates – that’s why he lost. The Conservatives came out for Palin and the fear of Obama possibly becoming the next POTUS, and even that wasn’t enough. He lacked charm and relatibility and he is just too damn old. Sorry.
The future of our party is in Jindal, Perry, Pawlenty etc., ‘cept course Palin. She’s the black sheep for a reason. Sarah Palin sucks. Please! If the Republican party has any sense at all, they’ll relinguish her to the state of Alaska forever, which is clearly her speed.
Don’t do it Republicans.
Republigal on November 24, 2008 at 2:26 PM
matoko_chan on November 23, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Enough, Matoko.
I don’t care what your opinion of Palin’s political viability is — it’s nonconstructive and rude to make comments about her hormonal levels to make a political point.
And in response to your other point about you and Colin Powell, any idiot can tell that we’ll need many more votes next time than we got this time around, but I shudder to think of being included in any group that counts you as a member. Your comments are consistently nasty, rude, and sexist and I hope to God you get some sense and civility sometime soon.
gippergal1984 on November 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Sarah makes me “CONSERVATIVE HOT” all over again… I want someone to articulate BASIC CONSERVATIVE principles again, that’s all, no “change” or “hope” montra’s… TRUTH, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, The CONSTITUTION, FREE MARKETS, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITES, FAMILY and GOD! Is that too much to ask?
Mark Garnett on November 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM
If Gov. Palin wants the candidacy it is hers to lose.
And she’ll lose it in a hurry if she doesn’t jujitsu the liberal media.
She’ll win with: National Security, Fiscal Responsibility and Acccountability(Transparency), Economic Growth, and Social Tolerance.
She has some momentum, and a pretty good resume.
We’ll see if ….
Randy
williars on November 24, 2008 at 2:31 PM
And ^^^^^ she just makes me plain HOT, (sorry to my wonderful wife of 24 years and to Dude, but she does)!
Mark Garnett on November 24, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Where do you get that figure. Pew, the liberal think tank, projected in February this year if immigration continues as it has for the next 40+ years, and birthrates continue as they have for the next 40+ years, that in 2050 whites will be a minority for the first time.
Dream on
Here is the US Census figures for white population 2007
entagor on November 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Without Christians and the social conservatives, the GOP goes NOWHERE.
You need to get that straight now before you even go further. It is a truth you must understand.
Next, without economic conservatives (budget, free-trade, low taxes, less gov. spending) the GOP goes NOWHERE.
Until ONE candidate can unite both along with a reasonable, somewhat less neo-con, but conservative military interests, we really are speculating way to early.
Let’s rebuild the infrastructure, get our platform put together to unite us, then get and back conservatives for 2010.
Also, Republigal, nobody will win the White House on a platform of lightly regulated selfishness. I can tell you are a pro-choice Repub.
I’m going to suggest a book for you since you seem to consider yourself a brainiac: “What’s So Great About Christianity?” by D’Nesh DSouza. It will explain to you why it is so important that the GOP includes Christians or socons too in a round-about way. The fight is really between Darwinists and those of us who want the truth.
Read it. There’s a reason why if the GOP drops completely some social issues why it would never win a national election again even with a conservative economic message.
Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I agree. If she wants it, she’ll need to jujitsu with the media better. She already stands for the above not only in belief, but in actions in Alaska. She should write a book on policy and her beliefs to talk directly to the American People what HER views are, not McCain’s.
Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM
What Sarah Palin did was re-energize the conservative base, which prior to her selection as VP had been pretty down on the election, knowing we were going to lose in November, and probably lose huge. Sarah is young, smart, tough and classy. She’s also beautiful, which doesn’t hurt – ask my girl Ann Coulter! A hostile media can make anyone look bad. She held her head high and wowed the crowds. That energy is what the Republicans need desperately. Whether she’ll still be contender in 4 years is anyone’s guess – an unknown may surface or one of our other guys may come out strong – but don’t underestimate the true landslide that was prevented when Sarah Palin was added to the ticket, including super majorities in both the house and senate.
eucher on November 24, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Mato,
I can tell that English is not your first language. That means you are an immigrant. Many men (assuming you are one) from other countries are much more sexist against women than here in the USA.
You need to tone down your sexist remarks about Sarah Palin or you’ll get sacked by Ed and AP if it goes to ridiculous lengths.
When you attack Sarah Palin (or Hillary Clinton) for that matter with sexist, rude, insulting remarks, you are attacking our American women. When you do that, you are not convincing anyone, you are only forcing us to come to the defense of a good woman, mother, wife, leader, regardless if she is a technical expert on the mortgage markets or foreign policy.
Keep your commentary directed not at a person’s sex, but their policies, beliefs, record and other factors. It’s one thing to ad hominem a man, but when you do it to a woman, a woman who has done nothing to earn such hatred, it just hurts you in the end. Keep the bitterness to yourself.
I am sometimes guilty of the same thing, especially with the overwhelmingly leftist MSM, but it doesn’t make it right.
Regarding Obama and race, you totally know nothing of why people voted for Obama and why people voted for McCain. Even if Obama was white, I can guarantee you the South would still vote for McCain. Race was not a serious issue to vote against Obama. The South is very repectful of the military and those who serve in it, and supply a higher ratio of soldiers to this country per capita than any other area of the country. This is why southerners liked McCain despite not liking his views on immigration, etc.
The base in the GOP is not shrinking like you think, and Bobby Jindal’s skin color has nothing to do with it.
You still seem to be caught up in some beleif that the USA is some racist country through and through. It ISN’T. The issues now are what a candidate believes, preaches, their record, etc.
Take a look at your home-country and see if it is as tolerant as the USA regarding race, or sex. DO IT! Heck, it may be why you are in the country, to avoid racism and/or sexism.
Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 3:03 PM
One of the better post-election analyses I’ve seen. Thanks.
Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Support Newt as the nominee and Jindal or Palin as his running mate for 2012. Unless you despise conservatism.
Brains on November 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 3:03 PM
+1
gippergal1984 on November 24, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Run baby run!
John The Baptist on November 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
And I just love this tripe about how we need to move away from social conservatism.
I think we should shy away from bringing all these issues to a federal level because it blunts what I think is a bigger founding principle of conservatism and that is FEDERALISM. See Schiavo, Terri circa 2005.
But really?! Both our candidate and the general election as a whole focused very little on social issues. There are many reasons why (I think the preeminent reason was that Obama’s record on social issues is frightening and way out of the mainstream) but it’s the truth.
The Left’s anger and hate for Bush bubbled over into an amazing wave of organization and mobilization that it would have been very hard to beat with almost any Republican. Not only that but a strong majority of people voted on the ECONOMY and weren’t even thinking about social issues.
Now, I think a strong part of the “Palin is a crazy evangelical bible thumper” narrative started with Charlie Gibson taking her church speech out of context and inferring that she thought the Iraq War was a task from God. I do NOT think we need that type of mentality but Judeo Christian values are a fundamental part of this movement and ignoring voters for whom they’re a priority is a big mistake.
Bottom line: I don’t think Republigal is a “troll” or “RINO” or whatever for not liking Palin, but a lot of this noise about dumping social conservatives is coming from liberals. Whenever we take advice from liberals how to pick and run candidates, WE LOSE AND LOSE BIG.
gippergal1984 on November 24, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Colin Powel was sooo conservative that he abandoned his deeply held beliefs to endorse a brother. The Conservative movement is better off without him.
dpierson on November 24, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I love these people who are writing off Sarah Palin because of one bad interview and a turkey incident. She’s given a dozen interviews since the Couric interview and has made no mistakes and has sounded intelligent, but no one cares. She had given dozens of interviews before the Couric interview and sounded intelligent and persuasive. But no one cares.
Apparently, she’s used to such constant harping from people who have never stepped up to the plate themselves. I read this in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News in October 2006, before she was elected governor:
She’s only lost three races in her life: the Miss Alaska pageant in 1984, the lieutenant governor race in 2002, and her vice presidential bid in 2008. In 1984, she won Miss Congeniality and earned enough scholarship money to pay for college. In 2006, she rebounded from her lieutenant governor loss to win the governorship. In 2008, she’ll survive this presidential race and go on to bigger and better things.
Reagan made two presidential runs before finally winning. There was a premature bid in 1968, and a long hard race in 1976, and after that one everyone thought he was surely finished once and for all. The nation went on to elect Carter, and conservatism and the GOP looked like they were done for good. Liberalism won, and a new era was about to be born.
Yeah, right. Funny how history has a way of ripping the rug out under our foolish assumptions.
Feel free to underestimate the ‘Cuda. Her critics always do. And they’re always shocked when she comes back and wins.
ramrocks on November 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM
damn straight … and you haven’t heard anything from Carl Cameron either
joey24007 on November 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Part 1 of 2
I’m really getting sick and tired of what I’m calling rorschach politics. People have turned Sarah Palin into a rorschach candidate and seeing whatever they want to see her as regardless of her actual beliefs or positions.
They define her as the uber social conservative Christian Right candidate. Let’s see if that fits.
She is on the record as stating her belief in evolution and that evolution should be taught in science classes.
She is on the record as not supporting abstinence only education. She thinks contraception should also be taught in sex ed.
She signed into law a bill granting same sex couples joint benefits despite calls from social conservatives to veto it. She signed it because she was told that the state’s Supreme Court would over rule her veto.
She expressed in her vice presidential debate with Biden that she would never do anything “to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital [for same sex couples] or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.” In other words, she’s open to civil union laws for same sex couples.
She did express her support of a Federal Marriage Amendment. But considering that everywhere that same sex marriage is placed on the ballot, it is voted down, only to be overturned by over-reaching judges, and then to be placed on the ballot again, I think it might be time for Americans to have done with this stupid issue once and for all. I would absolutely love to watch a democratic presidential candidate try to defend a stance against a Federal Marriage Amendment during and election year. Go ahead, try it! When Palin made her non-support of gay marriage perfectly clear during her debate, Biden practically jumped up and down shouting, “me too, me too! I don’t support it either!” It was about the only thing both of them agreed upon. So, far from being a losing issue, Palin’s support of a Marriage Amendment is a winning one. Civil union laws can and should be for states to decide. Marriage is another matter because it goes hand in hand with our freedom of religion.
What else have I forgotten? Home schooling? She proudly states that her kids go to public schools and her family is full of public school teachers. She even vetoed a charter school bill because it is against the Alaskan state constitution. She is famous for being a strict constructionist when it comes to her state’s constitution. She made a name for herself by pulling that constitution out, dusting it off, and citing it constantly as the blueprint for how Alaskan leaders should govern. Her inaugural address was a discourse on the wisdom of the drafters of the Alaskan constitution and how that document would be her guide in governing. Needless to say, she has a great deal of respect for founding documents and is not interested in foisting her social views on the libertarian leaning citizenry of Alaska.
ramrocks on November 24, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Part 2 of 2
She also resisted the urge to get bogged down in debate on social issues when her chief political opponent, Alaska’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Lyda Green, proposed a special session to vote on a pro-life amendment at the same time that Palin was trying to rally bipartisan support for her natural gas pipeline legislation. It was a shameless political maneuver by Green because she knew how much Palin cared about pro-life issues and she knew that a fight over this would cause partisan bickering and Palin was relying on her good relationship with Democrats to get her pipeline legislation passed. Palin didn’t take the bait. She refused to sign off on the special session proposal. And Palin successfully got the natural gas pipeline legislation passed. All of this illustrates another point — Palin is pragmatic. She will not push for the impossible. She will not polarize people. She makes clear goals and she fulfills them. She has clear principles and she sticks to them. Everyone knows where she stands.
As for her church attendance, Palin has stated on the record that she is not a member of any church. When asked her denomination, she says simply “Christian” and when asked to clarify, she says she’s just a “bible believing” Christian. Her parents have said that they were never “hard core anything”. Her father and brother are not believers, but her father said that he goes to church as a matter of family unity. He said that his wife and daughters are “born again Christians”.
Well, have I missed any other hot button social conservative issues? What else is there? Let me know so that I can debunk them.
I think we’ll discover that Sarah Palin is much more moderate than we give her credit for.
ramrocks on November 24, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Part 3
I forgot to mention her pro-life stance. This is the one area where she is as hard core as they get.
Her position, it should be noted, is a philosophically consistent one. Whenever I hear a Republican politician declare that they are pro-life except in the cases of rape or incest, I think, well isn’t that convenient. It’s wrong to take the life of an unborn child unless that child’s father committed a terrible crime, then it’s okay to kill the child. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Either it’s wrong because it’s a human life or it’s not. We do not punish the child for the sins of the father. Politicians who take this rape and incest exception seem to me to be panderers. They know that they need to be pro-life in accordance with their party’s platform and in order to garner the votes of their party’s base, but they don’t want to alienate the MSM when they shoot back at them that rape and incest argument, so they figure they’ll just nip that issue in the bud by saying, “it’s okay in that instance.” This is their way of saying, “I really don’t want to talk about all this pro-life stuff. Can we just move along?” That famous pro-choicer George Herbert Walker Bush was the first to really make good use of this rape and incest exception after he suddenly saw the light on abortion and decided he was pro-life after all. Palin doesn’t play this game. She is pro-life by principle. She believes an unborn baby is a human life and killing an unborn child is wrong regardless of what that child’s father did.
ramrocks on November 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Benny, last I looked, KP was a Clinton devotee. Like all liberals you dodged the point and aswered your own question.
Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 9:46 PM
ramrocks,
thanx for the time you put in on the above…
Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 9:47 PM
My pleasure. It’s my way of combating AP’s insistence on pigeonholing Palin as the “Christian Right candidate” and not simply the conservative candidate.
ramrocks on November 24, 2008 at 10:42 PM
The continued use of the photo of her winking is demeaning, and an attempt to marginalize her.
I don’t think the repetitiveness is necessary.
rlwo2008 on November 25, 2008 at 7:21 AM
I’m assuming that you’re a male with little interaction with older females. Hormone replacement therapy after menopause can keep women attractive well after they normally “whither”. She has more charisma than Obama ever will – all Obama has is a teleprompter and a little toad telling him what to do.
Doppleganker on November 25, 2008 at 7:29 AM
What a great commentary. I am one of those unapologetically pro-life women. I wasn’t that way until I had a child myself. But it took that for me to truly grasp that a life is a life. They develop personalities well before they come out. The women I know who’ve had abortions are using it as birth control – not in some noble quest of freedom. Rape only results in pregnancy in <1% of rapes (statistically speaking). So there goes that argument.
This all goes back to the current way of thinking that there should be no failures. By eliminating chances for failure with crappy schools and easily accessible abortion you create a generation that doesn’t know how to overcome adversity. Good job, libs. Good job.
Doppleganker on November 25, 2008 at 7:35 AM
ramrocks … that was awesome
you are right, people are trying to label her as simply the social con candidate ….
I would expect somebody like AP to actually research he record first but hey, the media is the media
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 9:08 AM
ramrocks on November 24, 2008 at 10:42 PM
God that was great!
Something else to keep in mind, people: Sarah Palin had more LIBERTARIAN creds than anyone in this race.
Alaska is a fundamentally libertarian state in many ways and there is no way she’d enjoy the high approval rating she does if she governed like a holy roller.
Put it this way: When Don Young, Alaska’s only House member, found himself in a tight race this time around, he aggressively courted the endorsement of none other than Ron Paul. I don’t mean to put these three politicians in the same basket but I do mean to underscore that Alaska isn’t a bunch of bible thumping theocrats and I don’t think they’d elect one as Governor.
gippergal1984 on November 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM
You are totally spot on about Alaska’s libertarian sentiment. It should also be noted that well over a year ago, the first group to push for a Sarah Palin vp candidacy was the Ron Paul supporters! They thought that if Paul had by some miracle won the nomination, Sarah Palin would have been the perfect choice for his vp because she is ideologically in line with his libertarian values. Her approach to government is centered on her belief that the most effective government is local. Problems are solved locally. And what works on a local level should not be assumed to work on a national or even state level. Her support of local revenue sharing is a great case in point. Her criticism of “No Child Left Behind” is based on the fact that it is counterproductive in Alaska because in remote rural regions there is no alternative to the public school. If the public school fails the “No Child Left Behind” litmus test, there is no other option. Whenever Washington tries a “one size fits all” approach to matters like this they fail miserably. Her frustration at Washington interference could be felt in her RNC convention speech when she spoke of “getting more marching orders from Washington, D.C.” It’s classic small government libertarianism.
BTW, during the primaries the only candidate that Palin gave enthusiastic impromptu praise for was…wait for it…Ron Paul! I’m not suggesting that she would agree with him on everything, but she is certainly sympathetic to his libertarian ideals.
And one more BTW…Palin is the only politician who can say that when she smoked pot it was legal! LOL! She said she tried it once and didn’t care for it, but it was in fact legal to do so in Alaska at the time. Got to love the Last Frontier!
ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 12:39 PM
She is on the record as stating her belief in evolution and that evolution should be taught in science classes.
She is also on record as believing in Young Earth Creationism just like GW.
Observing what one low IQ evangelical bumbler has done to our country in 8 years makes you long for another one?
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 1:37 PM
ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Right! And let’s be clear — Ron Paul has a lot of problems and I don’t think he’s the way forward…
But his run wouldn’t have gotten as much attention and online support as it did unless Republicans,conservatives,and libertarians alike weren’t hungering for a departure from one-size-fits-all government and federal overreaching…..
She can easily capture that same hunger and put a mainstream face on it.
gippergal1984 on November 25, 2008 at 1:37 PM
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 1:37 PM
No. She. Doesn’t.
There were plenty of rumors flying around but nothing concrete to actually prove anything like that.
But please, continue getting your political insight from Matt Damon. Would be better than what you’re coming up with on your own.
gippergal1984 on November 25, 2008 at 1:40 PM
ROFLMAO
no she isn’t … that “record” is a anti-Palin blogger who claimed that he “met Palin and that she told him that”
Andrew Wilkow went into great detail to combat this smear
what kind of governor says to somebody that she just met … hey I believe in this yada yada yada
give me a break
I bet you didn’t know that she banned books! Like Harry Potter! Even though it wasn’t even written yet
and as for her thoughts on evolution … she said that she will never push her own beliefs on any state institution, which include education
So buy a freaking clue dude or continue to be a useful idiot for the left
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 2:00 PM
State your source, please. She said in her Couric interview that she believes in evolution and that it should be taught in class. Her only reference to creationism is that if it came up in class — if a student brought it up in class — it was alright to discuss it. But she never said that it should be part of the curriculum. In effect, she was saying that free speech should not be discouraged on this topic or any other in the classroom. If a student mentions creationism, what do you suggest? Should the student be suspended? Palin also said that if this is such a hot button issue in some places, then just “teach both”. In other words, just get along and stop this crap. Palin’s comments were nothing more or less than common sense and the sort of “get along” tolerance that has made this country work.
I’m sick and tired of people distorting her words in order to paint her as some type of nut-job. Her father is a science teacher and an amateur naturalist. He has an 10,000 year old fossil in his house (he showed it off on CBS), so obviously she believes the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Like the South Park episode claims … about 25% of the population are just morons and this Mataco Chewbacca is just one of them
keep up the good work ramrocks
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM
we need to start a Palin defense team or something
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Right on, joey. I’m beginning to assemble a file of sorts. We should pool our resources. There are other sites out there, but none of them are very organized about it. They were assembled on the spur of the moment during the campaign. We should create an organized, professional looking website that refutes these things one by one.
ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 2:08 PM
well I just posted something like that if you want to check it out
lol … I have a file saved on the computer with nearly 50+ articles
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 2:14 PM
haha … the Palintorian Guard
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Where do I enlist?!
ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Please God, no Sarah Palin. She’s George Bush in heels.
Potfry on November 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Michael Reagan never declared that George Bush reminded him of his dad reincarnated.
ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Here yah go.
The reason I believe this is that Palin wasn’t runnin for national office at the time, and didn’t unnerstand that a belief in young earth creationism is deathpoison to large portions of the electorate, as it should be.
Eg, since GW could muster a belief in “IDT” in the face of massive scientific data, then it was easy for him to reject data from Iraq and the stockmarket that didn’t fit his world view.
Office of teh Presidency: the Mortally Stupid should not apply.
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I mean, it is fine for Palin to believe in YEC.
Freedom of religion an all that.
But being able to believe in YEC when there is massive caontracdictory scientific data like carbon dating and the fossil record……that like a marker for Stupid.
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM
You guys are smitten.
Potfry on November 25, 2008 at 7:51 PM
ROFLMAO thanks for proving my point that this was nothing more than a rumor from an anti-Palin blogger
nice job there with the evidence
go back to being a useful idiot
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 7:51 PM
.
And if she believes that both should be taught, she is an anti-constitutionist, as well as either stupid or poorly informed.
Teaching creationism/IDT in public schools is simply illegal pace Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District.
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Why didn’t Palin deny it then?
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 7:57 PM
You saying Palin’s dad has a fossil doesn’t mean she didn’t say that.
I would love for Palin to take questions on ToE and YEC.
it would be uber.
I can see the resultant SNL skit from here.
matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Why would Palin deny a rumor from an anti-Palin blog
should she have to prove that Trig is her kid too?
how about the book banning … does she have to show a list of books that weren’t published
hey here is one … did you know that she ripped the tag of a mattress!!!!!?
Should she prove that smear wrong too?
you are one fool
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Your source in this whole issue is:
a guy who said
that she said this to him
that runs an anti-Palin blog
awesome
joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »