Zogby on 2012: Palin leads among Republicans, Romney leads among all voters
posted at 4:30 pm on November 28, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Check that: Romney barely leads among all voters, within the margin of error. But here’s evidence, in case more was needed, of how sharply conservatives’ view of the ‘Cuda diverges from America’s. Among Republicans, it’s Palin 24.4, Mitt 18.1, Jindal 15.6; among everyone, Mitt 13.7, Palin 13.4, Jindal 12.5.
What happened to Huck, who was in the thick of things when Gallup recently asked a similar question? Palin happened to Huck:
Among Republicans, she gets the support of 30% of Born-Again Christians, 32% of weekly churchgoers, 34% of National Rifle Association members, 28% of current gun owners and 29% of self-identified conservatives. More GOP support comes from 32% of blue collar workers, 30% who shop weekly at Wal-Mart, 28% of NASCAR fans and 25% of both those with children under 17 and those with family members in the military…
Palin looks to be stealing Huckabee’s thunder among Republican religious conservatives and working class voters. Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and his highest GOP totals still come from Born-Again Christians (15%) and weekly churchgoers (18%), but those numbers are about half of those drawn by Palin. Despite his populist economic message, he wins only 10% of blue collar Republicans.
There’s your explanation for why he’s been taking shots at her lately, in case it wasn’t already clear. Interesting to see Jindal’s numbers so high, though, given how comparatively low his profile is and how poorly he fared in the Gallup poll. As another young rock-star “future of the party” governor, I wonder if he isn’t peeling votes away from Palin among people who’ve soured on her for whatever reason. Exit invitation: Go ahead and tell me that the only reason she polls so much lower among all voters is because Democrats fear her. You know you want to.
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 Next »
Funny…………… I can tell that there is snow falling across the majority of the US when I see threads like this…. not much to do, team didn’t win, and already played with the wife, or with one’s self.
………… now that we are snowed in, what to do? What to do?
Hey, I have an idea, let’s get on-line!
If you must…………. stop harping on Sarah Palin, she can’t order troops to war, or sign law that will raise your taxes……………… That is Mr. Obama, President Elect, the Office of…………….
…………… so why not discuss why all of his records are sealed and why not a single word in the press?
…………. I hear it’s going to snow again tomorrow, have fun with that!
Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Allah, Use this picture of the governor.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/nxrisetaker2003/sarahboys.jpg
An Era of Hate on November 30, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Hey, thanks dakine for directing me to Joey’s website! Great website Joey!
I love Sarah Palin so much that I hope she doesn’t run for POTUS in 2012. I would much rather she ran in 2016 after completing another term as Governor. I think 4 years is too early for her to come back to the national stage as presidential candidate because I so want her to win and win big. Still, it is too early to be thinking of 2012. If Obambi screws up big time and everyone knows it, maybe 2012 will be right for her. I personally think he will do nothing in the first 4 years that are confrontational, just to make sure he is reelected. Remember, his reelection campaign starts on January 21st. Then if he is seen in a favorable light, I wouldn’t want to sacrifice Sarah in 2012.
Neocon Peg on November 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Sarah Palin has no experience.
And this country elected WHO, again?
irongrampa on November 30, 2008 at 7:48 PM
2012 is still years away so I’m still open minded. Although, I must admit Gov. Palin seems more real to me. But we have to see the candidates on the campaign trail and see how they do.
terryannonline on November 30, 2008 at 7:50 PM
What a bizarre way to list qualifications as a “resume!”
You mention “failed candidate for Lieutenant Governor.” How significant is that, when she was elected Governor? Why even list it as a resume? It’s nothing but an attempt to smear her actual achievements by listing irrelevancies as if they were significant.
Then you mention that she resigned her position. This is an achievement? How about it’s a transparent attempt to diminish her achievement as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission by focusing only on her resignation?
Then of course the obvious smears of listing her two beauty pageant competitions as “professional experience.”
These items alone establish you’re not interested in a serious discussion.
You also claim that you never called her dumb. Yet you keep harping on the question of what newspapers she reads as proof that she doesn’t read newspapers, because apparently she was incapable of answering the question. In short, you’re accusing her of being too dumb to read newspapers.
It’s abundantly clear that you’re trashing Sarah Palin to help out one of her competitors, possibly Romney.
No one is anointing Sarah Palin as our next presidential nominee. If she wants it, she’ll have to enter the competition, run in the primaries, secure the nomination, etc. What I’ve seen so far, though, suggests she would be the natural front runner if she tries. Frankly, I’d rather have Fred Thompson, but at 68 years of age now, he would be 72 by the time he could run again. Jindal and Sanford are also good possibilities, but they have a lot further to go to show they could win than Palin does.
BTW, anyone who voted for Ross Perot twice — and is not ashamed to admit it now — obviously ignored the fact that George H.W. Bush had what was widely acknowledged to be “the best resume in politics.” So I suspect Ivy league education and great credentials are not necessarily the most important things to you. Except when the subject is Sarah Palin.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Neocon Peg: you’re assuming she’ll be still as popular in 2016 and some new stud or goddess hasn’t come around by then to steal her thunder. I know it will be difficult to upset Obama in 2012 but as the old expression goes-strike while the iron is hot-SP is hot now-for her the future is now-she must go for it in my opinion in 2012. However, she might have a different opinion and if she does I will support her whatever she does.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Hey Pop,
The more you unfairly try to attack Sarah, and support Romney against her, the more the Palinistas will will circle around her and trample the threat. It’s a primordial thing. For Romney to beat out Sarah for the GOP nomination in 2012, he has to do it without direct attacks. If your people play dirty, Sarah’s people will get dirty too, not Sarah.
Think Napoleon in Russia, Von Paulus at Stalingrad, or the French at Dien Bien Phu.
You don’t want to go there. The GOP primary better be a fair fight with no dirty tricks, or Sarah’s People will bury you, and they won’t give a s**t about the general election.
Remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
Sapwolf on November 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Imagine 1100 threads and over 90% devoted to our gal Sarah. And we get her for the next 72 hours in Georgia and Philadelphia. Isn’t life grand?
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Techno, yes she is hot now, but she has star quality similar to Reagan that will continue to be hot. If she wants to go for it in 2012, I’m all the way behind her. I just fear she will go down in defeat against an Obama who accomplished nothing, but wants a second term to “complete his vision.” Are you seeing a failed Sarah run equals keeping her in the spotlight nationally? I didn’t mean to say that she should have no exposure during those 8 years. The more exposure she has, the better and the more exposure, the better the public will get to know her. Maybe in 4 years we can convince people that she is what she is and allay these rumors.
Basically, she was an unknown to most voters in 2008 until she made her big speech at the convention. Everybody loved her. She came out of nowhere to be the #1 Republican pick of all the candidates! I don’t think this kind of star power is going away, unless she distances herself from the public.
Neocon Peg on November 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Yes it is. I love the picks of her and Trig. Magic!
Sapwolf on November 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Proves my point. ;)
Illinidiva on November 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Sarah Palin’s message is what conservatives have been craving for years. Back to conservatism, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more states rights. This is a message that will not fail. Sarah Palin exemplifies that message today, tomorrow and in the future. She is the future of the GOP and the elites in Washington had better pick up on that fact, for their time in the GOP is limited. Ditto with RINOs. Vote ‘em out even if you have to replace them with Dims – the votes will not be any different. RINOs are democrat lite. No difference at all. Go Sarah! Lead us through the wilderness to the promised land!
Neocon Peg on November 30, 2008 at 8:38 PM
I think the more Palinfans complain about that wink pic, the more Allah will use it. He seems to be contrarian that way. Part of his charm, I guess. There are so many great pics of her out there a little variety would be nice. Even the one where she looks mean is great.
The camera is definitely kind to Sarah Palin.
Brian1972 on November 30, 2008 at 8:39 PM
I really like this photo of Sarah.
http://www.palinforvp.com/resources/_wsb_444×320_sarah-palin.jpg
Brian1972 on November 30, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Can we let this thread die? Palin’s 15 minutes are almost over. I love her, but c’mon, let’s move forward and reinvent the damned party!
cannonball on November 30, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Biden, Palin in complete agreement: Carbon caps are coming — and clean coal? (The Industry Standard)
Palin denounces Wall Street “greed” to big money donors(FOX News)
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM
LMAO! That doesn’t even make any sense! This is the problem with populists who do not understand economics.
Greed is good (John Stossel, Townhall)
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Again more propaganda and lies from the economic illiterates:
Romney increased fees amounted to $260 million a year. He never raised taxes.
I am all for reducing the cost of services but how service fees work in the free market is they must equal their cost + profit. In Government they must equal their cost otherwise you are subsidizing them through taxes. That is the reality. I firmly agree with Romney that you cannot get something for nothing. Raising fees to cover there costs REDUCES taxes. The solution after that is to cut the cost of the service to reduce the fees. But the Mass Government had been subsidizing their costs through taxation and that had to stop.
He never imposed an Internet Tax:
“I think the indication of the house vote indicates that most American’s are of the point of view that Internet only taxes of the type you describe are not something we want to see. I have a specific position on that issue, but I do not want to see internet only taxes as you described them or access fees or email charges and so forth. We do enough taxing in this country and let’s not add more taxes. I’d rather see the tax for innovation reduced rather than expanded.” – Mitt Romney, 2007
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Poptech: the Fox News Report says that SP was reading from a prepared speech on October 15 re: Wall Street greed. You know as well as I do that she was tightly scripted, that she had to parrot McCain’s talking points and in reality did not go rogue very often, if at all. Look if Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are all right with her echoing McCain’s talking points who am I to criticize the process?
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Yeah, like I said earlier this was the craptastic McCain campaign in action.
Jim62sch on November 30, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Really who are all of these non-college educated entreptreneurs? Please, the handful of well known ones are in the computer industry. You keep bringing up “impressive institutions” as if you are jealous.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Oh please keep spinning and making excuses. If you stand up there and say something you do not believe in for political gain then you have no integrity. So you are saying Palin has no integrity? I have heard enough from Sarah, she is economically illiterate and has no business being POTUS.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I don’t think so, she never said this and had a chance. Though making excuses now doesn’t make her look any less incompetent.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I’ll admit that Sarah will have to divorce herself from the McCain campaign and strike out on her own in terms of her own personal political philosophy as we move closer to 2010. Fortunately most of Sarah’s supporters are not ‘idiot Obamatrons’ (my name for those political morons highlighted in the Ziegler poll)but enlightened enough to realize that Sarah had to follow orders and stick to a script; thus she had little discretion to offer up her own points of views.Thus they will give her a fair opportunity to present her own case to the jury of conservative public opinion.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 9:25 PM
What would you do Poptech, if Romney very narrowly defeated Sarah Palin for the nomination in the primaries, then your boy Mitt picks Sarah for VP? You going to freak out on him and vote third party, or eat all your words from this thread?
Brian1972 on November 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Oh I voted for George H.W. Bush the first time, but not after this:
Bush Defends Reversal on Taxes, Citing Nation’s Economic Needs (The New York Times, 1990)
At lest Jr. got the message.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Poptech, your “incompetent” arguments, no matter how endlessly you repeat them, only make you look ludicrous. No matter what you think of her politics, incompetent people don’t rise from nowhere to become the most popular governor in the country, they don’t keep all of their campaign promises, they don’t achieve major infrastructure breakthroughs as she did with the pipeline, and they don’t leave a trail of ruined/jailed corruptocrats in their wake.
Jim62sch on November 30, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I would have to live with it.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Just read a great line over at Free Republic regarding why Republicans should not listen to the MSM or left-leaning or moderate pundits for advice: “Did General Patton take advice from the German generals on how to win his campaigns?” Should be our motto to defend Sarah to the death.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 9:34 PM
So, option #2.
Brian1972 on November 30, 2008 at 9:35 PM
No Palin makes herself look ridiculous:
Sarah Palin Can’t Name a Newspaper She Reads (Video)
One word = Obama
Palin did not keep all of her campaign promises!
Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop (Anchorage Daily News)
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:36 PM
are we going to go through this yet again?
talk about a waste of bandwidth
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 9:37 PM
I shouldn’t have fed you so much, Poptech, but I’m done now. It looks like you’re simply copying/pasting your earlier posts in this thread, and it’s tiresome.
How about that Romney support for the Big Dig Boondoggle?
Jim62sch on November 30, 2008 at 9:39 PM
What? The project that started in 1991? Give me a break.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:44 PM
.
Read it again. Don’t miss the word ‘If’.
.
Do you agree that greed is the same as profit?
News2Use on November 30, 2008 at 9:47 PM
This is like watching a Don Johnson music video on a playback loop
its so bad that we should be using it at Gitmo to get information
although it might violate the Geneva Convention
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 9:49 PM
No… but they gave him excellent reviews even before the war. They admired him unreservedly. Bad analogy.
lexhamfox on November 30, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I believe it is irrelevant in a capitalist system.
The Virtue of Greed (Walter E. Williams, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I have never seen somebody filibuster for two straight days on the same subject on the same thread at Hot Air before.
It’s great to feel strongly about your P-O-V and your preferred ex-candidate, but when you basically monopolize a thread, I think that’s a little obsessive.
Romney may or may not run in 2012. If he does, more power to him. However, Gov. Palin does seem to connect better to the base than he does right now, for several reasons. One of them could be because she is new, fresh and perceived as an Average American,”one of us”.
So, save some of your energy for 2012. It will be interesting.
kingsjester on November 30, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Obviously greed to an extent is good. One must still be ethical as they attempt to gain money and things.
I find it interesting that many people trash our capitalistic way of life then whine when the jobs dry up. I am not sure how they expect jobs to be created and maintained. Sorry but those government jobs will not fill the bill.
Jamson64 on November 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM
lexhamfox: the point is don’t consult with your enemy to plan your strategy for success. They have a vested interest that you not succeed. It’s as simple as that.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Yeah, this election caused me to dig out my old copy of Atlas Shrugged – if taxes go up, I’m planning to do the John Galt thing as much as possible to minimize what I’m forced to contribute financially to the destruction of my values.
I’m astonished at how the dialogue of the villians in the book is matched exactly by the words coming out of the Democrats and the Big News organizations.
Jim62sch on November 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Palin was for the Bridge before she was against it.
It turned out it would cost twice as much as originally proposed. The cost was a national embarrassment.
Palin killed the Bridge.
The money that had been approved by Congress and not yet spent was redirected toward other infrastructure projects.
BFD.
chunderroad on November 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
How about that Romney support for the Big Dig Boondoggle?
Jim62sch on November 30, 2008 at 9:39 PM
What? The project that started in 1991? Give me a break.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 9:44 PM
I wish all of you wouldn’t hate one person over the other. They are both good people. I still think if Romney had been the pick, and Sarah the vp, she would have 8 years to get up to speed.
When Romney took over he had to fire the head of the big dig and it is my understanding he had to go to court to get him out. He had wasted soooooo much money and the dems were OK with it. Then a slab collapsed and killed a woman. Then I can’t remember what happened after that. Romney WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BIG DIG!!!!!
Bambi on November 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Atlas Shrugged is the one non-religious book that I wouid recommend every Sarah Palin supporter read before 2010. You will get an insight about how devious Obama and his merry men and women are, how aristocratic elites insidiously gain control of and manipulate the levers of power, and generally why America ended up in the predicament that she currently finds itself politically, economically, socially and psychologically. I dare you to read the book cover to cover and not come out the other side transformed and ready to fight tooth and nail to elect Sarah or a true conservative in 2012 and save America and in turn make Obama yesterday’s news.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM
nobody here hates Romney
Poptech hates Palin
that is the difference
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Joey, you are so obsessed with Palin you can do nothing but repeat lies about me over and over. I don’t hate Palin, I think she is unqualified to be POTUS.
It is unbelievable how much of a pathetic liar you are.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I can’t believe that you have spent the last 2 days posting the same stuff over and over again about Mitt Romney
you said that their resumes spoke for themselves
yet you are still telling us about how much better Mitt Romney is over Sarah Palin
you might be one of Romney’s kids
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Romney is more qualified than Palin to be POTUS.
You have spent two days blindly defending her and lying about me over and over. I had no idea Palin supporters were such dishonest liars like yourself.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 10:37 PM
yes we understand that you believe this .. you posted their resumes and everything
you even told us that Reagan was an economic major
and the best part is that to make these 3 points … you posted 34353 times
awesome
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Wow don’t you guys have something else to do? Possible eat, drink, sleep, or live?
/sarc
Jamson64 on November 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Poptech: Why do you not allow any room for objective improvement in Sarah’s qualifications to be President? Are you saying that Sarah is so stupid and dense and devoid of political talent that over time leading up to 2012 that she will never develop any further? I know in a former posting you compared her to high-round draft choices Alex Smith and Ryan Leaf. Are you saying that after her performance at the Convention and in the debate against Biden and during the last 3 weeks of the campaign with a flurry of SRO speeches that electrified crowds all across the nation that she will stagnate or regress? Or are you completely discounting her overall performance and judging her on one subpar performance in a MSM interview? Even Alex and Ryan got more of an opportunity than that to prove to onlookers that they were absolute duds.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Although I have no strong feelings one way or another about Romney, I would weep for the Republican party if he were the 2012 nominee, because it would mean four more years of Obama.
chunderroad on November 30, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Just wanted to add a post to this long thread. Palin has my vote in 2012’s primary!
SouthernGent on November 30, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Poptech: You seem to have a one-track mind when it comes to qualifications. Let me see if I understand it.
Do you believe that ‘economic literacy’, as you define it, is a necessary qualification to be President of the United States?
Similar question.
Do you believe that ‘economic literacy’, as you define it, is a sufficient qualification to be President of the United States?
From your (oft-repeated) comments, the first answer, at least, seems to be yes, but I would like your response, to be sure.
However, I will say that I agree with most here when they state that Gov. Palin can hardly be ‘economically illiterate’ and accomplish what she has as governor. That is, if she made the decision personally. If she allowed the decision to be made by someone she appointed, this logic could be extended to the Presidency just as easily.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 10:52 PM
An obvious follow-up would be to give your definition of economic literacy, so that we can be sure to be speaking in the same terms.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 10:53 PM
lol … I’m ready to drink, as in drink, for the next 4 years
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 10:55 PM
The reason this is such a long thread is that SP brings out the passion in people either yea or nea. She is a lightning rod that stirs the pot and spices up the stew. if the Internet serves any purpose it is to let millions of Sarah supporters out there know that you are NOT alone, that we are prepared to join hands for the greater glory of America and its conservative movement. We will not sit idly by while Obama takes America down the road to Fascist repression and a one-party state aided and abetted by the MSM and its legions of effete elites who want to destroy the GOP for all time and be left without opposition as they rewrite the Constitution and gut the Bill of Rights.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 10:59 PM
techno: May our fears never become our reality.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Ok, truther. Tell me. Is that really a UFO in Hangar 18? How old are you? 15?
Grow Fins on November 30, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Poptech … I would like to offer you the olive branch
you believe that Romney is qualified (as I do)
but you don’t believe that Palin is qualified ( I disagree)
lets leave it at that …
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I disagree. So does the American public. Clearly Obama is not about creating American fascism, one party state, or out to destroy the constitution or the Bill of Rights. It’s that sort of absurd polemic that turns voters off these days. By all means criticize his policies and question the media but trying to make Obama out to be the anti-Christ will turn people on. Palin’s speeches and the campaigns use o her to attack Obama led to her high negatives in the polls. Clearly the party needs to come up with alternative policies and run a positive campaign in order to secure some electoral success. It is possible to be passionate and realistic at the same time.
lexhamfox on November 30, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I’m finding the Palin adoration similar to The One’s. It’s making me very uncomfortable.
For my money, I want a turnaround specialist in the White House. We need one now, we will need one in 4 years, we will need one in 8 years.
We would have been infinitely better off had Romney been our candidate. But, typical Republicans, we didn’t want this mess to straighten out on our watch so we threw the election with a bad ticket.
I think Romney would have won, and would have the cojones to handle this mess. For the country sake, not the party’s.
eaglesdontflock on November 30, 2008 at 11:09 PM
I think it’ll be interesting to see what the ‘Cuda’s strategy is over the next couple of years. She obviously wants to create a good foundation for a run in 2012 or 2016. From this point on, she’s in charge of her image, her message, her positions, and her strategy. Right now, among the independents that she’ll have to win over in the general election she doesn’t have high favorables. That’s something that she can address. In fact, she’s already proven that she can win over moderates and Democrats in Alaska.
Certainly she should strike while the iron is hot, but after the Philly trip I think that a step back from the national scene and then a reintroduction down the road might be the way to go. She’s scheduled to speak at CPAC. She should spend the next couple of months working on a speech that lays out a clear, concise vision for the future of conservatism (maybe Matt Scully is free to give her a hand). This speech can then be the foundation or core speech for her “chicken dinner” speech for the next few years.
She needs to network with other conservatives (Washington Whispers says that this is already underway), and work on building a first class policy and campaign team. Creating a PAC certainly wouldn’t hurt either. To counter MSM narrative (ie that she’s a lightweight or is not serious) she has to build on her strong record of governance and to present herself as a leader on serious issues. If she writes a book it needs to address her vision, positions, and public policy in a serious manner even if that means waiting a couple of years and accepting less money so that she can have time to really think through things.
She was a frequent interviewee on the “money” shows before the campaign. I think that she might be wise to do similar interviews with CSPAN, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal and similar outlets, and skip Oprah and The View for the time being. Oprah and The View are outlets that can reinforce the things people already love about her: authentic, hockey mom, moose hunter, middle class, personable, cheerful, communicator, regular gal, etc. She can remind people of that fairly quickly and easily when she announces her intention to run for national office. It’s going to take longer to counter the MSM and make people see that she is a serious politician and that she has a handle on the national and international issues and policy of the day.
Sorry for the long post. Looking forward to the ‘Cuda on the trail tomorrow.
meltenn on November 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM
lexham: While I agree that a positive message is what is needed going forward, I also believe that listening to non-conservatives in an effort to gain ground for conservatism is ultimately self-defeating.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:11 PM
we need closed primaries
I voted for Romney in my primary
How do you think he would have been looked at during the bailout nonsense?
Part of me says that he would have been blamed because he is of “wall st.”
but at least he would have been able to talk about the economy … McCain was lost there
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 11:12 PM
All you have to do is read Bill Ayres, Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx and throw in Mein Kampf, Machiavelli’s The Prince and Chairman Mao’s Little Red book and listen to the Castro and Chavez speak about Obama to surmise what is coming down the pike. Again for good measure read Atlas Shrugged; it provides a juicy blueprint for a complete Obama takeover.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 11:15 PM
I don’t think there is an “obama takeover”
however … he is probably the combination of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon B. Johnson
which will make for a bad presidency
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM
techno: I agree that that is the fear that most of us had regarding an Obama presidency. However, the future is never fixed.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I wonder if Santa would be painted as this extreme social conservative or a tax/spending handout giving liberal?
An Era of Hate on November 30, 2008 at 11:24 PM
he is a saint so lol
but then again, he only rewards those who have been good not those who are bad
he is a capitalist
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 11:25 PM
He’s a socialist of course. He’s spreading the toy wealth.
meltenn on November 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM
No I did not. Note this is one of the reasons this thread is so long, I have to keep correcting everyone about what I said.
I am judging her on multiple interviews but that one was simple inexcuseable. I am also judging her on supporting economic crippling cap and trade legislation (Carbon Capping) and going after corporate greed. This was all after I determined she was unqualified to be POTUS after researching her resume and was definitely not remotely the most qualified of the GOP to be VP let alone POTUS.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I’m going to post this one more time … the corporate greed in Alaska was CRONY CAPITALISM
anybody who knows anything about free market economics KNOWS that crony capitalism is not good in the long run
Crony Capitalism is what we have now with all of these bailouts … we are not letting the market decide which banks fail and which don’t … we have no created a situation in which the sec. of the treasury decides which banks receive aid … now banks who did nothing wrong will be competing with government subsidized banks … this is crony capitalism at its finest … take from the needy and give to the greedy
she ended that … more power to her
joey24007 on November 30, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Yes
Not on it’s own, I would prefer private sector experience too.
Anyone that supports Cap and Trade policies and stopping corporate greed are economically illiterate.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 11:35 PM
That is not corporate greed, that is government intervention in the market. It has nothing to do with greed. Capitalism will always exploit weaknesses in government for profit, which is why government needs to be removed from market economics. No amount of government intervention can “fix” the economy.
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 11:41 PM
joey24007; what do you call it when they are already thinking of putting Obama’s mug on Mount Rushmore, arresting Bush and Cheney for war crimes,owning the Big 3 automakers lock,stock and barrel, thinking of ways to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, devising schemes by way of the courts to dilute the provisions of the 2nd Amendment, unleashing ACORN to commit more voter fraud, naming schools after Obama, and Obama himself acting as if he were President already; I know ‘takeover’ implies a coup d’etat. I am fully aware that Obama was elected; does that fact mean that Obama and his advisors are not plotting as I write this how to marginalize the GOP with the full support of the MSM. I don’t think so. It will not take place in one fell swoop. The implementation of Radical socialist policies, the chipping away of freedom and the transformation of America politically to where only one political party remains electorally viable is a journey not a destination. The process will be gradual, insidious and often imperceptible. Finally do you remember the story of the boy who put a frog in hot water. He found that if he immersed a frog completely it would react instantly and leap out knowing it was in danger. But after a time he found from experimentation that if he slowly dipped another frog into the water and gradually dipped it in deeper and deeper that the frog would grow accustomed to the water and not sense it was in danger. After a time only the frog’s head remained above water. As the boy pushed the frog’s head under water the frog could not muster the strength to fight back as his energy had been sapped from him over time by the hot water. Of course the frog died. Friends, Obama is the little boy; we, you and me are the frogs.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Poptech: You seem to have an inarguable view of what it takes to be economically literate. In an attempt to have a discussion on it, can you please tell me what, in your view, makes you economically literate? I would like positive, as opposed to negative, criteria and discourse on this.
Also, your requirement for ‘economic literacy’ would disqualify by far the majority of past Presidents. That is your right, but realize that your view is not borne out by evidence as indicative of the majority in this country.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Greed, all this nonsense about “Greed”.
What is Greed? Greed is someone’s subjective feelings about another’s action thus irrelevant.
Who determine’s when someone is greedy? Who is the judge? Do we now have government dictating morality? Greed is populist rhetoric usually repeated by economic illiterates who usually happen to be financial failures to push for more government intervention in the economy.
Greed (1/3) (Video) (12min) (John Stossel, ABC News)
Greed (2/3) (Video) (13min) (John Stossel, ABC News)
Greed (3/3) (Video) (14min) (John Stossel, ABC News)
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM
techno: Odd. I have not seen anything as of yet where our President has been arrested for war crimes. Can you tell me where this has happened, and when?
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Scott H: I prefaced it by using the word ‘thinking’; obviously it is not a done deal yet, but even that they are thinking about it is an abomination to the history of our nation and an insult to the rule of law and the power of the Presidency as stated in the Constitution.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Pop: Fiscally, I am quite Libertarian in my viewpoints. (Socially, I’m rather Conservative.) I think that you are fixating on a misappellation, a confusion, rather than a pure socialism.
Much like you, I think, I see nothing wrong with profit honestly earned, no matter the amount. However, I see everything wrong with any money, profit or not, earned dishonestly. Many people might be using the term ‘greed’ when they actually mean the term ‘fraud’. The rhetoric is appalling, I agree, but the anger is misplaced in many cases.
As far as your ‘economic literacy’ crusade, I’ll note that ‘literacy’ goes further than simple ‘economic honesty’. Honesty is the purview of morals, while ‘literacy’ is the purview of education. As such, I second the thoughts of people here that wonder why so many people that should be economically literate (i.e., CEOs of corporations, banks, etc.) created such a fiscally risky situation in the first place.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I made the case she was unqualified in one of most first posts:
Sarah Palin
Age: 44
Religion:
- Pentecostal
Education:
- Attended, Hawaii Pacific University, 1982
- Attended, North Idaho College, 1983-1984
- Attended, University of Idaho, 1984-1985
- Attended, Matanuska-Susitna College, 1985
- B.S. Journalism, University of Idaho, 1987
Political Experience:
- Former Council Member, Wasilla City Council, Alaska, 1992-1996
- Former Mayor, Wasilla City, Alaska, 1996-2002 (pop: 7,028) (Votes: 909)
- Failed Candidate, Lieutenant Governor, Alaska, 2002
- Resigned, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004
- Governor, Alaska, 2006-present (1+1/2 years) (pop: 670,053)
Professional Experience:
- First Place, Miss Wasilla Beauty Contest, 1984
- Second Place, Miss Alaska Pageant, 1984
- Television Sports Reporter, 1987-1989
- Director, Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc., 2003-2007
Poptech on November 30, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I bet you are impotent. What a crock of crap….Can throw shit on others. Where is your resume? You don’t have a brain for one. I doubt that most of that stuff was on her resume. Nice try dipsh*t! Go home! Nothing you say has importance.
sheebe on November 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM
techno: Ah, the way I parsed your statement was tighter, and only associated the ‘thinking’ with the first part of the statement.
I agree it would be an awful miscarriage of justice, but let’s not count our chickens before they’re hatched.
Scott H on November 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM
For one I studied economics in college and continue to this day. I currently run a successful business and have run multiple in the past.
Probably true but I have not researched much of the past president’s economic backgrounds. Reagan and Bush Sr. had degrees in economics and Bush W. has an MBA. I am well aware the majority in this country do not understand free market economics and instead usually are brainwashed to support socialist policies. This continues to be one of my biggest problems with the electorate and one of the country’s biggest problems.
This is a good intro for people to economics:
Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (1/3) – ‘The Battle of Ideas’ (Google Video) (1hr 55min)
Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (2/3) – ‘The Agony of Reform’ (Google Video) (1hr 55min)
Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (3/3) – ‘The New Rules of the Game’ (Google Video) (1hr 55min)
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM
sheebe: Attacks ad hominem are very weak rhetorically. We can debate on merits. We cannot debate on character assassination.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM
My best advice in this matter is to let Sarah Palin be.
My intuition tells me that she’s not going to want the presidency in any way, shape or form, especially after the way the media and too many on the Left (and some on the Right) treated her and her family. Who wants to deal with such a pack of ravenous wolves a second time, especially when they have shown the power to harm even those you love the most?
I think she will give interviews and some strategy here and there, especially in regards to energy policy, but to seek the highest office in the land? Oh no! Unfortunately, Professor Reynolds was right when he said a while ago that the current political process doesn’t attract the best, nor the second best. Too many people who can make a real difference in the political process choose not to enter because, precisely, of those elite wolves.
If she never wants Washington, I will not blame her one bit. I wouldn’t want it, either. They can go screw themselves.
newton on December 1, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I completely agree but they still use it and unfortunately many really believe it.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 12:02 AM
All you have to do is read Bill Ayres, Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx and throw in Mein Kampf, Machiavelli’s The Prince and Chairman Mao’s Little Red book and listen to the Castro and Chavez speak about Obama to surmise what is coming down the pike. Again for good measure read Atlas Shrugged; it provides a juicy blueprint for a complete Obama takeover.
technopeasant on November 30, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Don’t think some can admit that the above books are very informing. If they read them, they might realize the dangers that are ahead of us. But, hiding is easier for some. Those books woke me up. I read all I can when it comes to knowing the ugliness that lurks around us.
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Unfortunately the word ‘askance’ has been slowly dying on the vine. It needs to be resurrected. Remember the theme from MacBeth. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. CEO’s and bank executives may possess acumen and a pedigree, but as my mother used to say if you don’t know the difference between right and wrong, don’t possess good morals or you decide to follow man’s laws, not God’s laws you’re going to get yourself into a heap of trouble. And that is what America faces right now: a heap of trouble.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 12:06 AM
In other news, A Gallup poll conducted recently showed that…
Bash away Poptech :)
The petty nasty comments below pretty much illustrate that Palin needs to work to revamp her image amongst folks outside the base. ( The pettiness will eventually cool off since we have just finished a heated electionit takes time..or maybe not… I heard some folks on the left pay people to spam these comment sections.
An Era of Hate on December 1, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Probably true but I have not researched much of the past president’s economic backgrounds. Reagan and Bush Sr. had degrees in economics and Bush W. has an MBA. I am well aware the majority in this country do not understand free market economics and instead usually are brainwashed to support socialist policies. This continues to be one of my biggest problems with the electorate and one of the country’s biggest problems.
This is a good intro for people to economics:
This is a great point! This is info I like to hear. You do have intelligence!
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Pop: Last I checked, most universities require a course in microeconomics in order to graduate with any degree. As such, basic literacy should be gained upon satisfactory completion of that course. This has one of two consequences.
1) That basic literacy was gained, and thus anyone with a college degree that required Economics ipso facto is economically literate.
Or
2) That basic literacy was not gained, and thus college degrees cannot be advanced as evidence of economic literacy.
Also, I recall that at one point you have argued that anyone could take Alaska, with its resources, and turn a profit. I would agree that anyone economically literate can do so. I will point out that the United States, last I checked, is still considered one of if not the strongest national economy in the world, and yet it does not turn a profit, either.
I would hope that a discussion of past Presidents would go further back than Reagan.
While advocating for greater knowledge of economic issues is a laudable goal, we do live in a representative democracy, and even today, the majority rules. In the end, if you support a democratic system, you must support it in both its strengths and its weaknesses. One of the inherent weaknesses of democracy is its reflection of the vicissitudes of the Masses. Whether this is good or bad, each individual can decide. However, it is, whichever view you hold.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 12:11 AM
but as my mother used to say if you don’t know the difference between right and wrong, don’t possess good morals or you decide to follow man’s laws, not God’s laws you’re going to get yourself into a heap of trouble. And that is what America faces right now: a heap of trouble.
technopeasant on December 1, 2008 at 12:06 AM
In those days, mothers knew the best logic. The sad thing is, not all Religions seem to follow the simple steps. I believe that Banks have power, but also: Paulson basically blackmailed the Banks. Freddie and Fannie threatened the banks also. Told them they couldn’t ask for proof of citizenship, or creditors. That they had to approve the home loans. That isn’t fair to the Banks either. Not a even keel so to speak.
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Techno: I completely agree, and for this reason I place moral statute above educational stature in my priorities for qualities to look for in a Presidential candidate.
A President can have advisors on all kinds of issues, but decisions imply morals, and the Presidency is a job that requires decision. As such, the character of the candidate often is more important than the breadth of their knowledge on the topics of the day.
Scott H on December 1, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Ok first of all the poll is 799 Republicans = Yawn. Second your constant attempts to discredit me as some leftist troll is pathetic and desperate. I have clearly stated I am a Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian and cannot support an economic illiterate who has no formal education in economics, no relevant private sector experience, wants to cap carbon emissions by government central planning and wants government to regulate corporate greed (no idea how that is done).
Don’t get me wrong you will have no problem convincing the one track mind social cons and anyone who never studied economics but the facts about Palin are not going to change.
Poptech on December 1, 2008 at 12:17 AM
I never called you a leftist troll….I was just calling you out on your bashing… some legitimate some not…
An Era of Hate on December 1, 2008 at 12:19 AM
newton on December 1, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I can agree with your post. Watching her interview with Greta, I don’t think she wants the viciousness that she got. They made up lies as they moved on. That is sad. She deserves better too. I do dream that she would. But I wouldn’t blame her either. McCain didn’t let her be herself. I believe he knew he was just the fall man. Oh well, election done and over. Guess we see on the 15th with the electorate’s decision.
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Poptech, some of what you have to say is interesting. But some of your facts about Palin is not accurate. And, you were pretty vicious on her also. The cruel statement you said about Joey was uncalled for. I don’t think you are a troll at all. A tad of class would do much better for you. When one trashes one, especially Palin. She isn’t here to defend herself. I for one will defend her. Some just can’t take a woman knowing what she wants. And having Control in a high office over men. I have researched a lot about Palin. Never saw half of the stuff you posted about her.
sheebe on December 1, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 Next »