Quotes of the day

posted at 9:30 pm on November 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist — a suicide pact, really — of alleged Republican positions. Anyone hoping to play on Team GOP would have to sign off on eight of the 10 — through their voting records, public statements or a questionnaire. The test will be put up for consideration before the Republican National Committee when it meets early next year in Hawaii…

“Each of Bopp’s bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse it in good conscience. Some are so simplistic as to be meaningless. As just one example: ‘We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.’ What does that mean? Do we support all troop surges no matter what other considerations might be taken into account? Do we take nothing else into account? Does disagreement mean one doesn’t support victory?

“Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply.”

***
“The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama’s unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa…

“In an era of ideological purity within the party, Cheney is among the purest; no one can question his conservative credentials on national security, and his record in the House and as vice president places him beyond reproach from the base. He was, it is true, second in command in years of great deficit spending, but his image as an implacable foe of terrorism and a hardliner on the projection of American power would go a long way toward securing his position within the party as a warrior of the old school offering himself once more to a nation he has served in four different decades…

“Far from fading away, Cheney has been the voice of the opposition since the inauguration. Wouldn’t it be more productive and even illuminating if he took his arguments out of the realm of punditry and into the arena of electoral politics?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4 5

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Yeah, I’d say Cap-n-trade or Obama-care is a deal breaker for me. Any vote for Amnesty would have to follow strong support to secure the boarder (~1 yr before amnesty vote).

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM

“you can get to be President of the United States even though you’re a totally empty suit. Know what I mean”

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I don’t see Palin as being an empty suit … at all, though.

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:21 AM

I see her as pretty superficial. I mean, she does good stuff, like gives more to charity than BHO, for example. And she’s willing to kill animals. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one, because most hunters I know, have some heart.

But at other times, man, I just get this slippery vibe from her. I was on the floor in St. Paul and was really hyped about her. Also from the debates. But after that, man, the worm just seemed to turn. She was always jumping into some petty crap or making some snarky comments that just didn’t jibe with me as coming from a person of substance. Like, “Hey John, why the long face.” I thought that was totally lame.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM

From Palin’s Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech (sure as heck doesn’t sound vacuous or vapid, but cold, hard realist and, dare I say, even reasoned) …

“Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap – the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.

If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources… it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish “go with the flow”.

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time… to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE… I’ll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won’t deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.”

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM

What is the difference between what Ms. Parker calls a “purity test” and the Contract for America? She thinks that they are “…so broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse them….” and I think they are easy to agree with for that exact same reason. I would be happy if the RNC would just set up rules for closed primaries and shut up while the locals make their choices.

Cindy Munford on November 29, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Feedback from those who are not Palin fans but read the book would be interesting too.

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:27 AM

I am Switzerland on Gov. Palin, I’ll let you know what I think.

Cindy Munford on November 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Feedback from those who are not Palin fans but read the book would be interesting too.

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:27 AM

I’m quite sure they can’t read, and if they could, all the big words would be too much.

jainphx on November 29, 2009 at 12:31 AM

And there, Sapwolf, is the mind of a Palin Fan in a nutshell.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Palin was subjected to a scrutiny that no other VP was subjected to. She was denigrate for being a woman, for being too pretty, for hunting (as vox is alluding to), for having conservative values, for having a Down’s baby, for working and not staying at home, etc, etc, etc.

Obama NEVER was subjected that kind of scrutiny and neither was McCain.

This smells of sexism more than anything else.

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Ask Vox (Poptech) about Wayne Allyn Root’s qualifications….LMAO

Norwegian on November 29, 2009 at 12:40 AM

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Yeah, I’d say Cap-n-trade or Obama-care is a deal breaker for me. Any vote for Amnesty would have to follow strong support to secure the boarder (~1 yr before amnesty vote).

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Grrr. I would much rather see Crap-and-Tax than amnesty for illegal aliens. C&T can at least be repealed when it wreaks havoc. Not so for amnesty. “Amnesty” is a dirty word in my house.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM

And, most definately, Biden was never subject to such scrutiny and he should have been!

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM

Like, “Hey John, why the long face.” I thought that was totally lame.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Then why’d the troops laugh so hard?

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:43 AM

What will amnesty beget versus Cap N Trade?

If you want to make it into such a stark choice, then debate them on the merits of their effects and not on personal preferences.

We have had amnesty before, you know.

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:43 AM

Grrr. I would much rather see Crap-and-Tax than amnesty for illegal aliens. C&T can at least be repealed when it wreaks havoc. Not so for amnesty. “Amnesty” is a dirty word in my house.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM

I don’t like Amnesty. It’s wrong; however, for every progressive republican of the John McCain ilk that goes on and on about how we “need” to pass immigration “reform” and how it’s impossible to send back millions of illegal immigrants, my point would be,

1) Completely secure the boarder(s)
2) Prosecute the illegal migrants that are caught doing ____
3) Cut of welfare programs

THEN we can have a “conversation.”

Before that happens, immigration “reform” is nothing more than vote-buying (or an attempt).

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Ok. I understand where you come from. I would allow that much for the reason of electibility.

Southernblogger on November 29, 2009 at 12:24 AM

But here’s my issue. Would we (currently) accept a republican that voted to pass Obama-care? If not, why would we accept one that wanted to used taxpayer dollars for healthcare. I see what you’re saying about electability, but at the moment, I’m not convinced that supporting gov’t funded abortions for a life threatening scenario would actually get a ProgRepub elected.

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:28 AM

I don’t really think that would be an issue. There is a lot of anger out there, but most folks probably have a near enough experience to relate to the exceptions. I believe it would be acceptable in the voting booth.

Southernblogger on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Like, “Hey John, why the long face.” I thought that was totally lame.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Then why’d the troops laugh so hard?

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:43 AM

Good for them. I thought it was lame and un-statesmanlike.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

*off

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM

We have had amnesty before, you know.

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:43 AM

And how’d that work out? A blessing, you say?

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM

What is the difference between what Ms. Parker calls a “purity test” and the Contract for America? She thinks that they are “…so broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse them….”

Cindy Munford on November 29, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Pfffft. People like Parker and Brooks are mascot “conservatives” who make their livings telling their lib employers and readers what they want to hear.

ddrintn on November 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Read the book. You’ll enjoy it.

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM

I don’t really think that would be an issue. There is a lot of anger out there, but most folks probably have a near enough experience to relate to the exceptions. I believe it would be acceptable in the voting booth.

Southernblogger on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Perhaps. In my personal experience, I would not vote for or support someone that left such a loophole. It’s too easy for them to redefine life threatening.

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:47 AM

Before that happens, immigration “reform” is nothing more than vote-buying (or an attempt).

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

No kidding. And how many of these newly-minted citizens are going to have conservative values and vote conservative? ‘Cuz it’s all to easy to see them all joining La Raza . . .

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

So a governor can’t crack a joke?

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

* dunno why the strikeouts appears. sloppy typing perhaps

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

ddrintn on November 29, 2009 at 12:46 AM

I would love to know how much those two get paid.

Cindy Munford on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

vox, what was the long term lasting effects of amnesty under Reagan?

Seriously, look at it emperically and not emotionally.

I don’t like the idea of amnesty either, but when you compare that to what is going to happen under Cap and Trade, I am not sure if I can take you seriously or not.

Is amnesty your litmus test?

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Hay vox, having a mind is essential to interpreting the drivel you write. You try to tell us that YOU and YOU only can determine that Palin is BAD for the party, and have the nerve to attack anyones mind. You can’t hear or see the traps put right in your face. I really feel sorry for you.

jainphx on November 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM
So a governor can’t crack a joke?

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

Is that what I said?

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:50 AM

No kidding. And how many of these newly-minted citizens are going to have conservative values and vote conservative? ‘Cuz it’s all to easy to see them all joining La Raza . . .

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

I don’t know. Some like ehhum Parker would probably go on and on about their great family values…

Eh, I don’t trust this attempt at reasoning. Why should I? They came here illegally and have been ghetto-ized.

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:50 AM

I don’t really think that would be an issue. There is a lot of anger out there, but most folks probably have a near enough experience to relate to the exceptions. I believe it would be acceptable in the voting booth.

Southernblogger on November 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Perhaps. In my personal experience, I would not vote for or support someone that left such a loophole. It’s too easy for them to redefine life threatening.

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 12:47 AM

To be honest it would bother me, but it would be my lie in the sand.

Southernblogger on November 29, 2009 at 12:50 AM

I would love to know how much those two get paid.

Cindy Munford on November 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM

If it’s for their writing and original thought, any amount is too much.

ddrintn on November 29, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Line. Duh on me.

Southernblogger on November 29, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Is amnesty your litmus test?

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Oooooh . . . you know, Texas, it might be one, yes.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:51 AM

“Hey John, why the long face.” I thought that was totally ….
voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM

You were on the floor, eh? It must have been a short drive across the border to Minnesota from Canada. Did you have your passport with you or were you down here on a visa? I hear that some Canadians don’t have a sense of humor especially those who claim that their parents were the salt of the earth types. How long is your face? Maybe you look like John Kerry? Did some bartender pour you a glass of ale and ask you that same question? I can then understand your sensitivity and taking offence maybe.

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 12:51 AM

You were on the floor, eh? It must have been a short drive across the border to Minnesota from Canada. Did you have your passport with you or were you down here on a visa? I hear that some Canadians don’t have a sense of humor especially those who claim that their parents were the salt of the earth types. How long is your face? Maybe you look like John Kerry? Did some bartender pour you a glass of ale and ask you that same question? I can then understand your sensitivity and taking offence maybe.

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 12:51 AM

LOL Calm down. You’ll have a stroke or something. :D

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:57 AM

5 draft deferment DICK Cheney.

Spathi on November 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM

How many draft deferments does current “Vice President” Uncle Joe Biden have?

5

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/02/bidens-deferments/

Next?

Del Dolemonte on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM

voxpop,

I totally agree with on the John Kerry joke. It was totally uncalled for.

terryannonline on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM

Oh Lordy!! ‘Pure conservative’ has just made the ranks of expressions I’ve come to hate like neo-conservative and RINO. And just like the latter two terms, there’s no such thing.

jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM

jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM

The term neo-conservative is definitely a term that applies to some. It has a different philosophy than paleo-conservatism.

MeatHeadinCA on November 29, 2009 at 1:01 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:57 AM

LOL back at you. I’m doing just fine. If you were a citizen of the US, who would you have wanted to vote for in the US 2008 presidential election? Don’t lie to us.

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 1:02 AM

terryannonline on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM

Why do you hate women?

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 1:05 AM

What’s wrong with Palin’s folksy style? Suits her. Truman sometimes spoke a lot like that too. Better than shifting back and forth among stuffy, pontificating and making lame, snarky jokes like Obama.

jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 1:08 AM

Why do you hate women?

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 1:05 AM

I don’t know why.

terryannonline on November 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 12:35 AM
voxpop,

I totally agree with on the John Kerry joke. It was totally uncalled for.

terryannonline on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM

Thanks. As an aside — and not to hijack — but I too read that article about gay marriage/civil rights and thought it was interesting and amusing. True story: Since the beginning of summer I’ve totally been rubbing it in the faces of black Obama-bots I know. I say stuff like, “Hey man, gay is the new black!”, every chance I get.

Strangely, though, for a bunch of supposed liberals, I have yet to meet one who seems to embrace that principle. ROTFLOL.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM

terryannonline on November 29, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Why do you hate women?

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 1:05 AM

Maybe for the same reason you hate America?

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 1:12 AM

“Far from fading away, Cheney has been the voice of the opposition since the inauguration. Wouldn’t it be more productive and even illuminating if he took his arguments out of the realm of punditry and into the arena of electoral politics?”

I’m sure the editor Statist hack at Newsweek would love that. You know, since the Bush GOP was such a smashing success, and Cheney is so beloved and all…

Rae on November 29, 2009 at 1:13 AM

I need to get up in 4 hours so this is my last on this …

Palin is not dumb. Her speeches alone should dispute this.

A political party needs a defining set of values and if the GOP decides it wants to be Democrat-lite, then say goodby to the GOP. Triangulation is not about just co-opting the opponent’s positions, it is also about using your own well defined positions to gain an advantage over the all ready weakened opposition. At one time it was easy to find the GOP Party Platform. Today, try finding that on the GOP website and you will get vacous, empty platitudes, not much else. (If am wrong, please point them out and I am not talking about state GOP party platform, but the national one)

TexasDude on November 29, 2009 at 1:18 AM

Palin is not dumb. Her speeches alone should dispute this.

A political party needs a defining set of values and if the GOP decides it wants to be Democrat-lite, then say goodby to the GOP. Triangulation is not about just co-opting the opponent’s positions, it is also about using your own well defined positions to gain an advantage over the all ready weakened opposition.

Tex, fine, but you act like it’s Palin or Pinko-ism for the GOP. I understand you think she’s the savior of the party, but many of us believe we need to keep looking elsewhere, that’s all. Doesn’t mean we’re less committed.

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 1:22 AM

Palin just talks like people you meet everyday. She can get a tad overly insistent about her personal values now and then, but at least she has some meaningful ones. That’s more than one can say about the shifty DC pols.

jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 1:24 AM

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 1:12 AM

Hey, I’m the one here trying to get you to laugh but that last one was very funny. Got any more come backs like that one? Teeryann and you probably have the same reservations about you know who. I think you two would make a wonderful couple. She is a Romney supporter or at least she was a while ago. You on the other hand avoid direct questions about voting. Since you can’t or won’t answer, I’ll leave you two to stroke each others ego.

It time to move on.

Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 1:26 AM

Regarding Palin …

She made the McCain campaign. McCain was Bob Dole all over again, but when he selected Palin, she brought in a vigor and life that gave the GOP hope.

That should be undisputed, but people like vox will deny her even that.

Why?

What is this great fear about a strong, conservative, opinionated, conservative woman?

TexasDude on November 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Exactly.

The bottom line is this: If Sarah Palin wants to be the next President, she is going to BE the next President. No one in America, I mean NO ONE has the juice she has. No one brings the excitement.

No one brings the practical experience and the vision she brings.

I like Dick Cheney, and he should be an adviser to a Palin administration, but he’s not Teh Won.

Sarah Palin is the one who has the ability to turn this mess around. She’s already done this sort of thing not once, but twice. Yes, America is f***ed up on an industrial scale, but Sarah is a proven leader know knows how to drag us back from the precipice.

Accept no substitutes.

gary4205 on November 29, 2009 at 1:29 AM

If this country was willing to experiment with that hollow man in the WH presently,I can see little reason not to experiment with Palin. Can’t get much worse and probably will get a lot better. I’d vote for her. But y’all who do not see her as a viable candidate, who do you favor?

jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 AM

If this country was willing to experiment with that hollow man in the WH presently,I can see little reason not to experiment with Palin. Can’t get much worse and probably will get a lot better. I’d vote for her. But y’all who do not see her as a viable candidate, who do you favor? jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 AM

I agree that Sarah would do just fine. Heh, America would be “experimenting” with conservatism not feminism if Mrs. P were elected. I think that we’d like the results. Unlike global warming, conservative economics doesn’t need junk science.

Mojave Mark on November 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Sarah Palin is the one who has the ability to turn this mess around. She’s already done this sort of thing not once, but twice. Yes, America is f***ed up on an industrial scale, but Sarah is a proven leader know knows how to drag us back from the precipice.

Accept no substitutes.

gary4205 on November 29, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Just humor me by reminding us of all her spectacular accomplishemnts she racked up during that half-term she deigned to spend serving the State of Alaska and her leadership of the vast and troubled metropolis of Wasilla.

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Palin has an at least somewhat libertarian/traditional conservative record as governor of Alaska. She was active in the Alaskan Independence Party, which shows a strong states rights stance. It was even reported by some that the governor was part of the Buchanan Brigades back in 96 and 2000, although others dispute this.

But since the Vice Presidential nomination, she’s trying to become this vanilla Bush/McCain Republican. If she finds a platform that focuses on a clear break from the past as opposed to the same old big government corporatist neoconservative, then she will easily get into the White House.

The Dean on November 29, 2009 at 1:43 AM

A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama’s unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.

fixed

Kaptain Amerika on November 29, 2009 at 1:47 AM

I’m going to see how many Alaska accomplishments I can recall. She got the pipeline started, challenged corrupt pols and won, cut state spending, cut some taxes and, I think but am not sure, balanced the budget with money to spare. Now let’s list Obama’s accomplishments prior to his presidency….er, I can’t think of any. Can anyone help me out with this?

jeanie on November 29, 2009 at 1:54 AM

gary4205 on November 29, 2009 at 1:29 AM

And the most important thing, she gets things done.

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 1:41 AM

BB,

Get the book and read it. It’s all in there. Great stuff, and a great read.

Heck it might make you bleed a little red too, and motivate you to get a legitimate job rather than being Axel’s troll stooge.

You can only go up.

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM

Wouldn’t it be more productive..if he took his arguments out of the realm of punditry and into the arena of electoral politics?

Yea, those 18-hour campaign days will combine really well with his cardio-electronics.

eeyore on November 29, 2009 at 2:00 AM

BB,

Get the book and read it. It’s all in there. Great stuff, and a great read.

Heck it might make you bleed a little red too, and motivate you to get a legitimate job rather than being Axel’s troll stooge.

You can only go up.

Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM

I’m waiting for the paperback.

And, not to say that she isn’t an accomplished woman. But there have been few things about her in the paper over the past, and none that I can recall reported anything earth-shaking, however. Took on the old boys in Juneau; negotiated a pipeline that now may not actually get built (s o that should probably come off the list); brought a couple of big box stores to Wasilla…am I missing something?

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 2:08 AM

I say stuff like, “Hey man, gay is the new black!”

voxpopuli on November 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM

A friend of mine, Asian Bob, who is as American as apple pie, said to me the other day, “Lance, yellow is the new white.”
I replied “So I guess white is the new black.”

Lanceman on November 29, 2009 at 2:19 AM

F the republican party and F these ridiculous purity tests. I’m not voting for those greasy politicians in the Republican party, I’m voting against the socialists and communists liberals.

thisisjohnny on November 29, 2009 at 2:19 AM

Great. Just great. I go out for two stinkin’ beers, and all my HA buddies haul ass and leave me with a diseased troll.

Lanceman on November 29, 2009 at 2:24 AM

voxpopuli , the “long face” joke was in response to Kerry’s “joke” wishing that Palin couldn’t be found instead of the then-missing Sanford, speaking of lame. It was a totally appropriate response to the munsteresque war hero.

Chickyraptor on November 29, 2009 at 2:49 AM

A purity test is a little over the top. I really don’t believe it’s either needed or necessary. Every politician runs on some platform, some set of values, some agenda to promote for either their own benefit or their constituents. Usually, it’s been for their own benefit.

From there you can extrapolate whether they are conservative or liberal, center or extreme, and to what degree they fit into your ideal candidate, or government employee (emphasis employee).

I’m currently reading about a certain hockey mom that joined the PTA to get involved in her children’s education and then went on to be the Governor of her state. The point is that she took her convictions with her and did not abandon them for political gain.(e.g. see Arlen Specter, political weasel)

——

As far as Dick Cheney is concerned.
Nothing would be finer than to see Liz Cheney succeed her dad as VEEP. Now ask yourself would you really need to test Liz Cheney. And I rest my case. This is not rocket science. However, Vice President Dick Cheney, and I do like saying that, did a fantastic job as Vice President for eight years. I like his role that he’s playing now. The foil to Obama’s policies, and a voice of common sense, among other things.

Dick Cheney served this country, and served well. It’s time to move on to a next generation with the stamina to deal with the rabid left hell bent on destroying this great country.

If you believe in your convictions, then make them known. You see a problem, Do something about it. Get involved. Never lose sight of why you are doing and what you want to accomplish. Ambition is not a bad thing if used properly.

Brought to you by Apathy R US

Kini on November 29, 2009 at 3:24 AM

Our problem is a severe lack of conservatives in the American electorate. Conservatives are a minority within the Republican party and virtually non-existent outside it. Part of the solution is to educate voters and win them over to conservatism. The rest of the solution is to find conservative candidates who can win elections.

We are failing at both parts of the solution at present.

Meremortal on November 29, 2009 at 3:36 AM

… concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

hmpf … apparently Jon Meacham either never heard of, ignores, or doesn’t understand the idea of checks and balances.

AZ_Redneck on November 29, 2009 at 4:27 AM

The suicide is in not having a public set of princples. There will be no money and no party if they don’t. Every agency has a stated set of goals or a mission statement -otherwise we have just a second place ruling class. The idocy of rejecting adherence to a solid set of beliefs before one receives support and money is not only acceptable but is long overdue.

When we pay for a car or vacation, we expect a certain set of features, and quality. A big basketball center who can pass and dunk is allowed to be weak at the foul line. The husband a woman seeks may be a good and loving father, repairman, lover and faithful, but lousy with his manners – golfers have to meet the cut. Standards for memebership are everywhere. Enough with this pig in a poke politics.

Leaving the very reason for electing someone, out of the mix, is idiotic. Funny how common sense morphs into “suicide.”

Don L on November 29, 2009 at 5:46 AM

I’d vote third party first.

DavidAllen on November 28, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Why not just vote for the candidate that is furthest away from your own principles and ideology? Same result.

anuts on November 29, 2009 at 5:51 AM

“…has a mandate to take the country in a given direction”

A split nation and vote gives the winner no mandate to alter the entire universe, as is Obama – just the office, with congress always havbing the constitutional mandate to oversee, aprrove of his appointment, give or not give him the money he seeks, and the courts to prevent congress from abusing their mandate.
The real problem is that congress thinks it has a mandate to rubberstamp Obama and the Courts think they have a mandate to make law instead of enforcing the constitution they flagrantly ignore.

Don L on November 29, 2009 at 5:53 AM

Our problem is a severe lack of conservatives in the American electorate. Conservatives are a minority within the Republican party and virtually non-existent outside it. Part of the solution is to educate voters and win them over to conservatism. The rest of the solution is to find conservative candidates who can win elections.

We are failing at both parts of the solution at present.

Meremortal on November 29, 2009 at 3:36 AM

I think you are mostly right. Palin has the charisma to be the standard bearer. Which is something we have lacked for some time. Those with any charisma at all were not true conservatives. (i.e. Rommney)

One thing Reagan had going for him was that he could connect with all those independents out there and make his brand of conservatism appeal to them. I see Sarah as have some of those qualities herself.

This is what we must have to not only win but turn back the socialist agenda overtaking our country now. Is Palin the one to do it? Maybe. Is she just going to be the cheerleader and teacher of the superiority of conservative values in a republic? Perhaps. Right now I think it is up to her which role she ultimately fills. Personally I think she could do either or both if she so desires.

conservnut on November 29, 2009 at 6:59 AM

What did Cheney do in 2005-2008?

He was the VP. Among others, he should have been the first person to fight the Democrat-liteness of the second term of Bush.

It was his supposed time. But he didn’t take the mantle of principles. He just went along with the flow. Where did that lead us, again? To the lies of Obama.

He should have run in 2008. But he was coward enough not to face the questions of many Americans about Iraq War and the economy.

No to Cheney.

TheAlamos on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 AM

TheAlamos on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 AM

While I agree No to Mr. Cheney, probably for different reasons than yours. I think we will find as time goes on that Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney moved apart on many issues. W’s “compassionate conservative” was probably a big clue as to what he thought government should do for the public but many of his plans got put on the back burner after 9/11. My guess, and obviously only a guess, is that I probably wouldn’t have liked what Pres. Bush would have done in office if 9/11 had not happened. Just my theory based on several of the very unconservative he managed or tried to get implemented. As for Mr. Cheney, we laugh about the Darth Cheney tag but most of the nation don’t think that’s a compliment.

Cindy Munford on November 29, 2009 at 7:47 AM

How about just foundation… fiscal conservatism and states rights. Every decision should be made on whether it is fiscally sound. Is it fiscally sound for the federal govt. to pay for abortions… NO.. defer to states. Is it fiscally sound for the govt. to legalize gay marriage? NO it would cost a fortune in bureaucracy spousal rights…. defer to states.

For the last twenty years both parties have used social issues they have no intention of dealing with to distract you. Everytime one party says look the gays, look abortion, everyone turns their head while they pick your pocket.

Once they have all your money you will have none with which to fight your pet issue.

Socmodfiscon on November 29, 2009 at 7:50 AM

That “mandate” crap is just too rich coming from Meacham/NEWSWEEK. As if political opposition is evil.

Your point MAKES the purity test: constitutional simplicity.

Does the legislation in question function strictly within the confines of the Constitution; or to explain its reason for being does it require ANOTHER BUREAUCRACY that demands HIGHER TAXES ALLOWING CONGRESS MORE FUNDS to misappropriate into pork?

maverick muse on November 29, 2009 at 8:10 AM

There are many flattering qualities of leadership that Cheney possesses.

“Cowardly” does not stick. If Cheney chose to neglect conservatism, it was not out of cowardice. Whatever Cheney did not do (“failed to do”) would have simply not suited him to do; he chose not to do.

maverick muse on November 29, 2009 at 8:15 AM

I like Cheney. I really do. But I don’t think he could win a national election.

And as far as pure is concerned, his attitudes toward gay marriage are not all that conservative.

I am sure that if he were elected, and actually had to govern and make policy, there would be a lot of people who claimed he was not following a pure enough path anyway. It is always that way. Even when Reagan was president. After Reagan passed he became an icon, but there was a lot of complaining from the right when he was actually in office. I remember that.

Terrye on November 29, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Cheney made it clear that during the “W” years his job was to backstop the President.

Backing up the boss’s play doesn’t really give you lots of wiggle room if the boss has already made up his mind.

gdonovan on November 29, 2009 at 8:37 AM

TheAlamos on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Democrat liteness of Bush’s second term??? I remember George W. Bush trying to bring real reform to Social Security and getting way too little support from the right in that effort. They knew he was CinC in a war with a not so loyal opposition and yet way too many people who claim to be real conservatives were willing to help the Democrats undermine Bush.

And of course they always had a reason. Immigration, Miers whatever..but when Reagan was President he actually signed an honest to God straight up amnesty bill and somehow managed to gain sainthood among conservatives.

The truth is I doubt if it would matter all that much who got elected, I think there are some people who would always claim they had been betrayed or whatever. Count on it.

Terrye on November 29, 2009 at 8:41 AM

gdonovan:

Most of these people would have turned on Cheney too.

Terrye on November 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Who came up with this purity test? Some unthinkers at the top of the gop, or was it suggested by someone in the media to them. Seems the elite thinkers at the gop main office are still afraid to think for themselves. Maybe more of them should attend tea parties and listen to some of the great ideas presented by the people there.

Kissmygrits on November 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Dick Cheney? Didn’t he and his idiot sidekick invade the wrong country? In the words of the former male cheerleader – Bring Em On!

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Who came up with this purity test? Some unthinkers at the top of the gop, or was it suggested by someone in the media to them. Seems the elite thinkers at the gop main office are still afraid to think for themselves. Maybe more of them should attend tea parties and listen to some of the great ideas presented by the people there.

Kissmygrits on November 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Actually, it was not the socalled elite, it was people who say they speak for the grassroots. Bopp, is the name of the Congressman.

Terrye on November 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM

simplesimon:

Boy, does your name work for you….what country were we supposed to invade? Afghanistan? We were already there and right now your side wants to boogy, so apparently there is no

right

country.

But then again it was a Democratic Senate that authorized the war and a Democratic President who made the removal of Saddam Hussein from power our national policy. That means that you can not even keep track of what is going on…you just yammer and yammer.

Terrye on November 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM

The best way to keep RINOs out is to have closed primaries. If it weren’t for Dims and “independents” we wouldn’t have had McCain forced on us.

uncalheels on November 29, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Cheney is the strongest leader I think we have. He has balls the size of Wyoming itself, not afraid to tell it like it is and will stop at nothing to protect the American people.

Having said that, he will not run nor can he win because of his health. He has had several heart attacks and stints placed in his heart and even during his tenure as VP, had to be rushed to the hospital for care.

It’s wishful thinking, and with a better heart, a sure winner.

tatersalad on November 29, 2009 at 9:20 AM

but when Reagan was President he actually signed an honest to God straight up amnesty bill and somehow managed to gain sainthood among conservatives.

Ahh yes… how the lefties love to throw this one out.

Let us not forget that at the time the number of illegals was calculated to be less than 3 million (numbers vary between 1.7 and 2.7 million)

How many is there now? Between 13 and 20 million.

Also the bill that Reagan signed made it clear that there was to be beefed up border patrols and stiff fines for employers and employees. Sadly these provisions were not enforced.

So what did we learn from this lession?

Amnesty does NOT work.

I say do what Ike did, round them up and deport.

gdonovan on November 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM

This Cheney love is an invitation to fail. To the extent that he’s identified with Bush Administration policies, he’s got two bungled wars, a string of unconstitutional domestic security initiatives and he’s the guy who said “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter (which should terrify the many of you who believe thr Republicans lost when they went away from core values).” Iran and North Korea told him/them to kiss off, and the economy collapsed.

Sure, he talks tough, but his only real achievement was a breathtaking display of crony capitalism that enriched his former employer.

Please, yes run that paranoid, incompetent old fool.

Make my day.

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM

The best Cheney image was when he was wheeled out of office on 1/20/09. He looked like Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life. All he needed was a blanket on his lap!

Hahha!

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM

And, not to say that she isn’t an accomplished woman. But there have been few things about her in the paper over the past, and none that I can recall reported anything earth-shaking, however. Took on the old boys in Juneau; negotiated a pipeline that now may not actually get built (s o that should probably come off the list); brought a couple of big box stores to Wasilla…am I missing something?

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 2:08 AM

To this day Obama has accomplished less (signed a stimulus bill he didn’t put together, dithered on Afghanistan, backing his nonexistent health care plan which may or may not get passed, bailed out GM, demonized AIG execs…am I missing something?) and yet it doesn’t bother you. Weird.

ddrintn on November 29, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Please, yes run that paranoid, incompetent old fool.

I have never seen so much amusing tripe in one post before!

Who is bungling what war? Who is ramming unconstitutional programs down our throats? Who is paying off assorted wall street types and union thugs?

Incompetent fool indeed President Zero is.

You are correct in one aspect, Cheney is NOT a good canidate for President for reasons you have not even touched on.

I made a prediction after the election and I see it coming more true every day. Within a year of Zero taking office people will start look back fondly at the Bush presidency.

Bush had many faults, but he wasn’t the keystone kops that are in charge now.

gdonovan on November 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the lever for Cheney, but I do not think that he is the person for 2012. If you could replace his polarizing characteristics with a “wise grandfather” option package, I would be more inclined to think so. I don’t think the antidote to Obama is anti-Obama or Obama-180. We don’t need a candidate who will abuse the electorate as badly from the right as we’ve been abused from the left. Vengeance may be sweet, but it’s short-lived.

I think what we need is first someone who can get elected; second someone with deep conservative convictions; third someone who is determined to lead wisely; and fourth someone who can stand against the most blistering assault from the left and their bapf media for four to eight years.

Immolate on November 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Who is bungling what war? Who is ramming unconstitutional programs down our throats? Who is paying off assorted wall street types and union thugs?

Yeah, I’m waiting for Cheney’s announcement speech:

“My fellow Americans, after eight years America’s economy was the strongest it’s ever been. Check that, I meant to say in the worse recession since the Great Depression. But we dream big — even before we spent almost a trillion dollars on the first bank bailout, we’d run up more than a trillion dollars in debt in just eight years. And we inherited a budget in surplus! Sure, Obam’s trying, but for the moment, Bush-Cheney is the gold standard in fiscal irresponsibility.

I promised that our troops in Iraq would be greeted as liberators and they would be deployed and brought home quickly. And, after a mere eight years some of them are actually being brought home by our successors. As for the first part, it depends what the definition of “liberators is.

But I recall the good days, the morning in America days when the hash we’d made of Iraq took our minds off Afghanistan. At least it took the situation in Afghanistan off my mind. I almost completely forgot that it existed. You know, Republicans are often accused of having little grasp of Daily Show-type irony, but I have to say that my accusing Obama of “dithering” was probably the most ironic thing a conservative has said since Nixon announced “I am not a crook.” Sometimes I crack myself up.

I could go on — illegally wiretapping American citizens, vetoing bills that ould have brought health care to children, getting outmaneuverd by the North Koreans, embracing a “what me worry?” energy policy that enriches Chavez, Putin and Amadinijad, demonizing gays even though my own daughter is a lesbian…gosh those were good times.

There’s almost too much for one speech, so I leave it at this: Vote Cheney 2012, and go a**backwards into the future.”

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 10:25 AM

There’s almost too much for one speech, so I leave it at this: Vote Cheney 2012, and go a**backwards into the future.”

Bleeds Blue on November 29, 2009 at 10:25 AM

There’s the growing feeling we’re doing that right now. Back to the Carter administration.

ddrintn on November 29, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Simplesimon, in case you haven’t noticed, your idiot messiah is still in Iraq so obviously he doesn’t think its the wrong anything.

Speedwagon82 on November 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Barrack Obama- Back to the Future IV

The return of Jimmy Carter

gdonovan on November 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Wow! Troll city in this thread.

Blake on November 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM

S

implesimon, in case you haven’t noticed, your idiot messiah is still in Iraq so obviously he doesn’t think its the wrong anything.

Speedwagon82 on November 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM

He’s just cleaning up Bush’s Folly. Thousands dead, hundreds of billions of $ squandered – for nothing.

Mission Accomplished!

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Thousands dead, hundreds of billions of $ squandered – for nothing.

I guess any nation can flaunt a cease fire with the U.S. with impunity eh? Were just a paper tiger then.

Millions of Iraqi who died at the hands of the Saddams might not agree with you either.

gdonovan on November 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Cheney has been effectively destroyed by the left. Even if he had a healthy heart, he would have no chance of winning the presidency. Those who don’t want Sarah Palin can go look at Huckabee, Romney, and Pawlenty. No ideas, no chance of winning the primaries, and are not conservatives.

Frankly, I don’t understand a word AP writes.

rlwo2008 on November 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5