Quotes of the day

posted at 10:37 pm on March 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

“President Obama would deliver a shellacking to a generic Republican candidate if 2012′s presidential election were held today, a new poll found Wednesday.

“Forty-seven percent of registered voters said they would choose to reelect Obama, compared to 35 percent who would prefer an unnamed Republican candidate, while 16 percent were undecided, a Pew Research Center poll found.

“That puts Obama at basically the same position as President George W. Bush at a similar point in his presidency, and a stronger standing than President Clinton held in March of 1995.”

***
“Only a few months into his political career, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is considering a presidential bid.

“‘Rand would not run if his dad’s running,’ said Jesse Benton, political director for Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). ‘But if his dad doesn’t run and he fails to see a viable candidate or candidates in the Republican field, that are serious about debt spending and the budget crisis facing our country, then he will be very tempted to weigh his options.’

“He’s been visiting the key primary states of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, giving speeches and meeting with local Republican leaders — a largely under the radar effort because, until now, no one thought the newly elected senator would seriously consider the race.”

***
“While it’s hard to envision Paul actually winning the GOP nod, improving on his father’s performance in the 2008 primaries seems entirely possible. Ron Paul finished fifth in Iowa with 9 percent and fifth in New Hampshire with 8 percent, then became a media afterthought. Given that he began the campaign with no money, no name recognition and no expectations, this represented a remarkable showing; he ended up beating Rudy Giuliani — the early GOP front-runner — in nearly every state in which they both competed. But it was also something of a disappointment, given the tens of millions of dollars Paul was able to raise and the free media he attracted. The New Hampshire GOP electorate, with its fierce libertarian bent, seemed a particularly promising audience for his message, and his campaign had hoped to break through with a much stronger performance there.

“Rand Paul could potentially deliver such a performance. In a crowded field likely to underwhelm the GOP base, it’s not hard to imagine Paul — with his brash style and message of absolute ideological purity — standing out in debates and winning over more Republican voters than his father, who still struggles with basic television skills. The best-case scenario for Paul would probably be replicating what Pat Buchanan achieved in 1996: a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa (he nabbed 23 percent, good for second place), followed by a startling win (with just 29 percent of the vote) in New Hampshire — at which point a panicked GOP establishment rallied around the strongest non-Buchanan candidate (Bob Dole) and denied him the nomination.”

***
“During a Q-and-A session, he was asked about his January comments on CNN that he’d be tempted to run if Palin were a candidate. Giuliani called that remark ‘rash.’ But he said his fears of the GOP choosing a nominee who can’t win a general election might prompt him to run.

“‘If all we are faced with are candidates that are too far right so that they can’t win the general election, then that’s when I’d reconsider doing it,’ Giuliani said.

“‘Do not underestimate Barack Obama. He is a very ineffective president but a very effective politician,’ Giuliani said. Obama can win a second term ‘if we put up a candidate that he can isolate as a right-wing candidate, too far-right.’

***
“Part of Romney’s popularity among Tea Partyers is simply a product of the fact that he’s well liked among all Republicans; 21% in this survey say they’d like him to be the candidate. It’s early enough that all polling should be taken pretty lightly and Romney is certainly benefiting from high name recognition across the board. But it’s notable that he actually performs a bit better among self-identified Tea Party members than with the party overall. There are a few explanations for this. Romney does especially well with older and wealthier Republicans, two characteristics polling suggests is common in the Tea Party. Related to affluence, Tea Partyers are also on average better educated, and they may be identifying with Romney as an Ivy Leaguer.”

***
Click the image to watch.


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

Mike Pence where art thou?

El_Terrible on March 24, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Mitt can not win the South. Mitt can not compete in the midwest. Mitt will not win in the NE. Mitt might be able to compete in the Upper midwest.

His entire campaign will be I’m not as bad as Obama.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Yeah, those two things are it in a nutshell. He has no base of support, and he and the GOP will be counting on an anti-Obama vote, not a pro-Romney vote. It will be a slaughter.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:31 AM

I don’t know on what basis you assert that, but I do hope you’re wrong.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2011 at 12:31 AM

A couple of things: on the outcome of the 2008 primaries, and on the fact that Romney apparently already is the choice of so many in the GOP. GOP voters are led around by the nose by the media all the friggin’ time. The 2012 election will be no different.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:33 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:27 AM

You don’t live in the South do you?

I have lived in the South. I’m currently in FLA (although still a resident of NV). Does that count as the South?

Mitt can not win the South

Is it your contention that Obama beats Mitt in the South? Please. The South will go GOP, just as it has every election since Nixon. Even when Southerners headed up the ticket for the Dems.

And Obama ain’t no Southerner.

Mitt can not compete in the midwest.

Well, there’s the rub, now isn’t it?

But…

Mitt might be able to compete in the Upper midwest.

If he can compete in the Upper Midwest, he can take theMidwest, Illinois notwithstanding.

It will be McCain allover again

Well, if that’s the case, I’m up a grand :-)

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:38 AM

It will be McCain allover again

Well, if that’s the case, I’m up a grand :-)

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:38 AM

No, I will be If Romney doesn’t choose a charismatic VP who will fire up the base, he loses by at least 10 points. Guaranteed. And I don’t see whom he could choose at this point that would do the trick. It’s for sure Palin’s not going to be the squishes’ scapegoat again.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:42 AM

I have lived in the South. I’m currently in FLA (although still a resident of NV). Does that count as the South?

No FL is not the south. It’s more a vacation spot for NE.

Is it your contention that Obama beats Mitt in the South? Please. The South will go GOP, just as it has every election since Nixon. Even when Southerners headed up the ticket for the Dems.

And Obama ain’t no Southerner.

Yes it is my contention. McCain lost NC and VA becaue of the black vote. The only think that save GA and SC from going to Obama was Palin.

If he can compete in the Upper Midwest, he can take theMidwest, Illinois notwithstanding.

compete is not winning. He will play well in MI and maybe Wis. He will lose in IA, MO, Minn. he will not be able to make the sell in IH nor Pa. There is no EC pathway for victory for Mitt. Pandering to the NE liberal republicans is not a gameplan for sucess.

Well, if that’s the case, I’m up a grand :-)

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Your forgetting. McCain had Palin. Mitt will not only not have Palin but he has burned the bridges to getting her supporters support.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Is it your contention that Obama beats Mitt in the South? Please. The South will go GOP, just as it has every election since Nixon. Even when Southerners headed up the ticket for the Dems.

And Obama ain’t no Southerner.

Virginia went blue the last election for the first time since 1964. Don’t assume that all those rubes are going to go out to vote for the GOP in lockstep no matter what candidate you throw out there. I wouldn’t be surprised to see my native state of TN go for Obama if Romney’s the nominee, and it’s not because of his religion, either. Romney doesn’t seem to care much about the south, and the south reciprocates.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Who’s your candidate?

Emperor Norton on March 23, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Why must someone “have” a candidate in order to hold the opinion that Palin is a sure loser? I see Palin supporters fall to this distraction“argument” fairly often, but it never makes any more sense to me.

DaveS on March 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:27 AM

McCain didn’t campaign aggressively against Obama.

Did you miss who won the primaries in 2008?

McCain was incapable of campaigning aggressively, probably against anyone. He didn’t do so against Bush. Didn’t do so against Hayworth. I’m still mystified he won the GOP nomination, except I know the GOP well enough to know it gives the nod to the next in line, which was Johnnie Mac.

I think Romney campaigned much harder than McCain, and probably more than anyone else in 2008, with the exception of Giuliani.

Romney will not want to be called a racist, either, so he’ll go easy on Obama as well.

I think you give the race card far more credence than it deserves. I think any GOP candidate knows it will be played against them, and that it will have limited effect. I don’t think anyone is really afraid of the race card this time around.

Plus there’s the whole ObamaCare/RomneyCare thing.

But that is, at worst, a wash.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

A couple of things: on the outcome of the 2008 primaries, and on the fact that Romney apparently already is the choice of so many in the GOP. GOP voters are led around by the nose by the media all the friggin’ time. The 2012 election will be no different.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Romney didn’t make it through the primaries in 2008, remember? And as for all the people that are Romney supporters now, remember that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

All that being the case, in 2008, I didn’t vote in the primaries. I did in 2010, and I intend to make 2012 my first presidential primary vote. If it’s true that Romney is a force to be reckoned with, I don’t intend to let him go unchallenged this time.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Palin hit a home run on greta tonight.

very Presidential.

http://www.palintv.com/2011/03/23/governor-palin-on-the-record-with-greta-van-susteren-march-23-2011/

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:48 AM

DaveS on March 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Because if you are voting for Obama as so many of you anti-Palinbots are it sorta changes the flavor of what you are saying Dave the Democrat.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM

McCain was incapable of campaigning aggressively, probably against anyone. He didn’t do so against Bush. Didn’t do so against Hayworth.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Are you kidding? He was vicious against Hayworth. The GOP moderates only have bile for the people in their own party.

I’m still mystified he won the GOP nomination

Romney also proved to be a milksop of a debater. He was a bad candidate in 2008, and he’ll be a bad candidate in 2012.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Plus there’s the whole ObamaCare/RomneyCare thing.

But that is, at worst, a wash.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Advantage Obama.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:51 AM

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Take a look at the raw numbers from across the entire South, and it hasn’t gone Dem since Johnson (although it might have been close in 1996).

Don’t assume that all those rubes are going to go out to vote for the GOP in lockstep no matter what candidate you throw out there.

Why not? All those rubes fine Republican voters went out and voted for Bob Dole and Johnnie Mac, and in both of those cases the Dem was in a much better position vis-a-vis the south than Barack obama is right now.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:52 AM

I think Romney campaigned much harder than McCain, and probably more than anyone else in 2008, with the exception of Giuliani.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

You need to rewatch the final debate (California IIRC), Romney was lame and even when McCain was miscasting what he stood for he just let McCain walk all over him.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Pat Buchanan came within 2% of Dole in Iowa and beat him in New Hampshire.

If he had won both, Dole would not have been able to defeat him in North Carolina.

Rand Paul can win if he comes anywhere close to Buchanan’s base, but he also is less of a firebrand so he can appeal to moderates.

Spathi on March 24, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Because if you are voting for Obama as so many of you anti-Palinbots are it sorta changes the flavor of what you are saying Dave the Democrat.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM

You have no reason to think that is the case at all… frankly, people who equate “I think Palin is an awful, horrible, embarrassingly bad candidate” with “I want to vote for Barack Obama” have no real place in any intelligent debate. You’re a logical fallacy machine.

DaveS on March 24, 2011 at 12:54 AM

I don’t think anyone is really afraid of the race card this time around.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

ROFLMAO…..are you insane? The entire GOp establishment is concerned abouot this…

Oh and if your want to see how the race of Mitt/Obama will play out simply follow this conversation:

In response to Mitt Romney’s Corner post last night, his spokesman Eric Ferhnstrom this morning tweeted: “I wonder if @davidaxelrod will praise Romney’s proposed executive order issuing Obamacare waivers to all 50 states?”

To which David Axelrod responded: “I’m not going comment either way until he lands on his final position.”

And then couldn’t resist but to add: “I still admire what he did in MA on health care, though. In many ways, a model for the nation!”

To which Ferhnstrom responded: “If you really want to get health insurance to more people, try giving them a job. 14m unemployed is a disgrace.”

And there’s the presidential race for you — Tweeting for ‘12.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Got that? Mitt can not attack Obamacare. Mitt will attack Obama on jobs, Obama will attack Mitt on being a flipflopper. And once Mitt brings up jobs it opens him up to attacks about his Wall Street past. Wall street outside of Dc is the most hated place in the country. Mitt has deep ties to both places DC and Wall Street. he will be destoryed. Mitt has no military background. He has no foundation of Reaganism. He makes bush look like a conservative.

It will be a wipeout. And then When Obama wins 400+ EV his agenda will be rammed through by the wimps in the Gop congress who want to get along.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:55 AM

“President Obama would deliver a shellacking to a generic Republican candidate if 2012′s presidential election were held today, a new poll found Wednesday.

Polls during the 2010 elections showed that no one loved the Republicans. Republicans had ignored their base voters on spending, energy, immigration, borders, McCain Feingold et al. This alienated a large part of their voters and that discontent started and continues to drive the Tea Party movement.

The Republicans had a great 2010 election only because they were not Democrats, not because they were doing good things. If they hope to win the Presidency they better be working to put up a good strong knee jerk Republican or Conservative, not someone with squishy liberal streak. We don’t want Romney’s health care, Pawlenty’s Cap & Trade or Daniels’ surrender to Democrats on social issues.

Republicans had better understand that they are on probation and so far they’ve been less than impressive.

They need to stand firm and make thing happen, not passing pointless legislation like their stand alone bill to defund NPR that has exactly zero chances of becoming law. Spending bills must originate in the House, they should simply erase the line funding NPR, not send a stand alone bill requiring Democrats to agree to defund one of the Democrat media outlets because that will never happen. It was a foolish move that accomplished nothing except giving the Democrats a campaign ad saying that the evil Republicans passed a House bill to defund NPR, but Senate Democrats saved NPR.

RJL on March 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM

in both of those cases the Dem was in a much better position vis-a-vis the south than Barack obama is right now.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:52 AM

those dems were not black

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:57 AM

frankly, people who equate “I think Palin is an awful, horrible, embarrassingly bad candidate” with “I want to vote for Barack Obama

DaveS on March 24, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Thats pretty much how most of them turn out Dave the Democrat. Of course I have seen your other trolling so it makes it even easier. There are other, actual conservatives who are against Palin but they come at it differently.

JohnGalt23 is an example of someone who is opposed to Palin but is an actual conservative.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Are you kidding? He was vicious against Hayworth.

ddrintn on March 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Clearly, you and I have different ideas about what constitutes “vicious” campaigning. The worst I remember was McCain calling him out on a bunch of earmarks. I seem to remember the hardest stuff coming from the Hayworth camp.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Why is it that whenever I see the words “Sarah is a sure loser” it’ sounds like wishful thinking from a pathetic liberal?

JannyMae on March 24, 2011 at 12:59 AM

I don’t think anyone is really afraid of the race card this time around.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Can’t say I agree. Michael Steele is a case in point. He was an incompetent and yet the GOP couldn’t remove him regardless of what he did.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:01 AM

I am an Arizonan, and McCain was absolutely vicious in attacking Hayworth. I got a flyer nearly every day in the mail from the McCain campaign for WEEKS, attacking Hayworth with half-truths and lies.

JannyMae on March 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM

in both of those cases the Dem was in a much better position vis-a-vis the south than Barack obama is right now.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 12:52 AM

those dems were not black

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 12:57 AM

You mean Bill Clinton wasn’t our first black POTUS???

I’m shocked!

And the candidate in 2008 was black. And he still lost the South.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Michael Steele is a case in point. He was an incompetent and yet the GOP couldn’t remove him regardless of what he did.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Except for the fact that we did. The party simply (and wisely) waited until after the election.

But I sure as hell didn’t hear anyone whimpering that Mike Steele played the race card, even when he did. He played it, the party ignored it, and now he is gone.

QED

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Palin calling it like she sees it. I hope the politically correct crowd won’t be upset. I actually don’t think it is allowed to speak like this against the Palestinians. I hope Palin doesn’t get in too much trouble.

Via Gateway Pundit.

Sarah Palin the Anti-Obama: Why Aren’t We Putting Our Foot Down & Telling The Palestinians to Quit Their Bombing of Innocent Israelis.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/sarah-palin-the-anti-obama-why-is-it-that-the-us-often-tells-israel-that-they-need-to-back-off-video/

chief on March 24, 2011 at 1:07 AM

And the candidate in 2008 was black. And he still lost the South.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Only because of gov palin. And he didn’t lose the south. He lost the majority of the South. He won NC, Va came within 1,000 votes of getting MO. And he won FL( which is not the south but he won the “southern” parts of FL.) He also came very close to winning Ga as well.

If not for gov Palin Obama woould have “won” the south.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:08 AM

DaveS on March 24, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Actually we do have a reason to believe that. Check out the 1964 election when moderate GOPers voted in droves for LBJ over Goldwater. How about the 2010 election where moderate GOPers in Nevada and Conneticutt voted for the very liberal dims over conservatives they didn’t like.

Moderates demand we conservative stay home and vote for moderates that win primaries but won’t stay home themselves when conservatives win primaries.

chemman on March 24, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Except for the fact that we did. The party simply (and wisely) waited until after the election.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:06 AM

I thought he served out his term regardless of his conduct?

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:09 AM

JohnGalt23 is an example of someone who is opposed to Palin but is an actual conservative.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 12:58 AM

It’s not even that I’m opposed to her (not yet, at least). Ideologically, other than the Paul’s, I’d be most happy voting for her.

But as someone who is responsible for down-ticket GOP races, I cannot ignore polls that show her getting wiped out in a general election, far more so than Huck or Romney, neither of whom I would prefer to Palin.

In short, nominating a candidate for POTUS is bigger than ideological pleasure. And I’ve studied the ’65-’66 Congress enough to know as much as I admire the Goldwater candidacy, I don’t want to see another.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:11 AM

JannyMae on March 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM

The radio commercials I heard in Arizona were worse than the fliers. If McCain would have been that vicious in the Presidential campaign he would have won.

chemman on March 24, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Tea Partyers are also on average better educated, and they may be identifying with Romney as an Ivy Leaguer

My guess is that pew thinks there are a lot of independents somewhat curious as to whether they are in league with the tea party and they want to persuade them against that notion with this laughably false portrayal. I think that quote will end up forever discrediting Pew. It will probably disappear from the internet by next election.

Buddahpundit on March 24, 2011 at 1:13 AM

I

n short, nominating a candidate for POTUS is bigger than ideological pleasure. And I’ve studied the ’65-’66 Congress enough to know as much as I admire the Goldwater candidacy, I don’t want to see another.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:11 AM

???. Goldwater ran in the 64 presidential election against LBJ. What does 65-66 have to do with it?

chemman on March 24, 2011 at 1:15 AM

I thought he served out his term regardless of his conduct?

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:09 AM

The GOP could have put him up for another term. And he tried, hard for another term, up to and including insinuating that opposition to him was grounded in racism.

But the GOP did the right thing, ignored the race card, and showed him the exit.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:17 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:11 AM

honest question. why are you eqauting the polls?

One has been a target of negative attacks for two years. The other two have not. ther eis nothing to suggest those two will avoid those attacks if they cgain the nomination. the polls are showing Palin results after the attacks and Mitt/huck results before the attacks. they are not the same.

In fac tif you look at those polls it shows you the bottom result of a Palin POTUS run and the best expected result of a Mitt/huck run. Or in other words the polls show tha tthe only candidate with a chace of climbing is gov Palin.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:17 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I think it is a mistake to try to win elections by poll.

They are notoriously unreliable and tend to poll to ignorance, particularly this far out. Palin has been painted by the media as being something she isn’t and frankly most people don’t care enough to even consider if it is true. That will change as the election draws closer. Romney’s popularity will dissolve as the same attacks used on Palin are turned on him. He is far more vulnerable to that sort of attack than she is and the media will not give him a free pass.

As has already been pointed out Reagan didn’t poll well at all and the moderate Republicans that led the GOP to disaster time and time again had much better numbers than Reagan.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:18 AM

???. Goldwater ran in the 64 presidential election against LBJ. What does 65-66 have to do with it?

chemman on March 24, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Do you really think Johnson had such huge majorities (filibuster proof Senate, even when you needed 67 votes for cloture) by accident? Or could it have been because of the GOP’s poor performance in the ’64 election, in which Goldwater headed the ticket?

Seriously, this ain’t rocket science.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:19 AM

But as someone who is responsible for down-ticket GOP races, I cannot ignore polls that show her getting wiped out in a general election, far more so than Huck or Romney, neither of whom I would prefer to Palin.

In short, nominating a candidate for POTUS is bigger than ideological pleasure. And I’ve studied the ’65-’66 Congress enough to know as much as I admire the Goldwater candidacy, I don’t want to see another.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Maybe you should start following leaders instead of polls. It could prove to be a healthy exercise in turning the sorry state of our country around.

gryphon202 on March 24, 2011 at 1:22 AM

But the GOP did the right thing, ignored the race card, and showed him the exit.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:17 AM

The GOP at that point had no choice. They refused to remove him for one reason and that was the race card.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:22 AM

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I think it is a mistake to try to win elections by poll.

And I think it is a mistake to ignore polling. At the end of the day, and no matter how flawed polling might be, they are the only objective measure you have prior to the voting. Otherwise, you find yourself in NYC asking how Nixon could win when nobody you knew voted for him.

They are notoriously unreliable and tend to poll to ignorance, particularly this far out

That’s a valid point, which is why we hold primaries (and, IMHO, should wait until later in 2012 to hold them). But while individual polls may be unreliable, taken in aggregate they do tend to paint a more reliable picture.

Palin has been painted by the media as being something she isn’t and frankly most people don’t care enough to even consider if it is true. That will change as the election draws closer.

No. It might change as the election draws closer.

Then again, it might get worse.

As has already been pointed out Reagan didn’t poll well at all and the moderate Republicans that led the GOP to disaster time and time again had much better numbers than Reagan.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:18 AM

True.

And equally true, every poll showed Goldwater getting slaughtered, which in fact turned out to be right on the money.

And with the benefit of hindsight, I can say that even the election of Reagan wasn’t enough to undo the damage done by the trouncing of Goldwater.

Would you disagree?

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Would you disagree?

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM

yes

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:32 AM

The GOP at that point had no choice. They refused to remove him for one reason and that was the race card.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I’d argue they had far better grounds to remove him before the election. After all, we did win in 2010. Victory salves a lot of wounds (even if/though Steele wasn’t responsible for the victory).

but the fact remains Steele played the race card in his reelection bid, the party ignored it, and as far as I can tell, suffered no consequences as a result.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:33 AM

And with the benefit of hindsight, I can say that even the election of Reagan wasn’t enough to undo the damage done by the trouncing of Goldwater.

Would you disagree?

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM

I know the question wasn’t directed at me, but I feel I have to chime in here:

If Reagan wasn’t enough to undo it, we sure as sh!t ain’t gonna do it by nominating and subsequently electing anyone other than the most principled candidate. Besides which, I think our problems run much deeper than anything that started with Goldwater in ’64. (e.g. the 16th amendment et. al)

gryphon202 on March 24, 2011 at 1:34 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:17 AM

You know, that was a real good logical take on the polls, never looked at it that way before. I think you are spot on.

Alinsky on March 24, 2011 at 1:42 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Really?

So, Reagan was able to undo Medicare?

He was able to undo Medicaid?

He was able to undo the Social Security Act of 1965?

He was able to undo the Higher Education Act of 1965?

He was able to get rid of the NEA and the NEH?

Of course he wasn’t.

Reagan did a lot of good things. But the damage done by the 89th Congress still lives with us today. Not through any fault of Reagan. Simply because the slaughter we suffered in 1964 gave the Dems the necessary advantage in Congress to do what can now only be undone with massive GOP majorities in Congress.

God help us if we ever face that situation again.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:42 AM

And equally true, every poll showed Goldwater getting slaughtered, which in fact turned out to be right on the money.

I don’t know enough about the 1964 election to judge it in the proper context, but I do know that Goldwater wasn’t someone I would much care to vote for due to his distaste for far too many conservatives.

And with the benefit of hindsight, I can say that even the election of Reagan wasn’t enough to undo the damage done by the trouncing of Goldwater.

Would you disagree?

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM

I don’t think that an election victory is going to reverse any of what you seem to be suggesting. They don’t have that kind of impact. Conservatives have lost the moral battle and that is the one that matters. The media, the schools and universities are liberal held territory. It was just a matter of time until we arrived at this point and A Reagan every term wouldn’t alter that.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:46 AM

gryphon202 on March 24, 2011 at 1:34 AM

If Reagan wasn’t enough to undo it, we sure as sh!t ain’t gonna do it by nominating and subsequently electing anyone other than the most principled candidate

It’s not a matter of a principled POTUS, at least not entirely. Without a big majority in the Senate, or without real structural changes (e.g. a Sunset Amendment), we won’t get rid of Great Society programs. A POTUS can provide a certain amount of leadership, but with a big majority in Congress (along with constant pressure from the base), even a milquetoast POTUS could see some of it rolled back.

Once again, the real power is always in Congress.

Besides which, I think our problems run much deeper than anything that started with Goldwater in ’64. (e.g. the 16th amendment et. al)

They do run deeper. But the 89th Congress was the worst example of the worst excesses within one Congress.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:49 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Reagan was able to grow the economy to be able to support those programs unlike bushism. Without Reagan the USA would have been a bankrupt 3rd world piss hole. The USSR would be the global power on earth.

Oh and that slaughter we suffered was at the hands of the RINOS that voted for LBJ instead of Goldwater. Much like we have Obamacare to thank them for.

also you tend to forget that LBJ was running as a war time president. We were very much in the war at that time tahnsk to JFK. He was also running as JFK’s successor.

the squish Nixon had a change to roll back the great society instead he doubled down on them and brought us the EPa much like bush brought us No child left behind. Both will destory our nation soon.

Your example does not compute.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:49 AM

You know, that was a real good logical take on the polls, never looked at it that way before. I think you are spot on.

Alinsky on March 24, 2011 at 1:42 AM

thanks. someone I’m not sure who reffered to gov Palin as a known unknown.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:53 AM

I don’t think that an election victory is going to reverse any of what you seem to be suggesting. They don’t have that kind of impact.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 1:46 AM

I’m less concerned with reversing it (although I live to see the day it is reversed) than I am about preventing it from happening again. We stood on the precipice of it with the last Congress. I’ve said repeatedly that we should thank our lucky stars that BHO wasn’t as skilled a politician as LBJ, or we’d all be really f**ked right now.

Were we to suffer a wipeout in 2012, we’d be facing the same possibility as 2009-10, with the added little turd on top of BHO knowing better how to operate the levers of power in DC.

And that keeps me awake at night.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:55 AM

The radio commercials I heard in Arizona were worse than the fliers. If McCain would have been that vicious in the Presidential campaign he would have won.

chemman on March 24, 2011 at 1:12 AM

I got to the point where I would just change the station when they came on. “Arizona’s last line of defense!”

:puke:

JannyMae on March 24, 2011 at 1:56 AM

I’ve said repeatedly that we should thank our lucky stars that BHO wasn’t as skilled a politician as LBJ, or we’d all be really f**ked right now.
JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:55 AM

You shoud be thanking your lucky stars that there was a Gov Palin around to drive the opposition to BHO and his agenda. Without Gov Palin changing the narrative from let’s get along with Obama as Jeb bush and Mitt Romney wanted to one of small government common sense conservativism (i.e reaganism) BHO would not be having a GOp congress now. Palin was the monkey wrench in Obama’s plans. Most of his programs he assumed he could pass in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:00 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Reagan was able to grow the economy to be able to support those programs

Great. But the damage was already done. And as impressive as Reagan’s victories were, he never had the Congress necessary to turn back the tide.

Oh and that slaughter we suffered was at the hands of the RINOS that voted for LBJ instead of Goldwater. Much like we have Obamacare to thank them for.

also you tend to forget that LBJ was running as a war time president. We were very much in the war at that time tahnsk to JFK. He was also running as JFK’s successor.

Doesn’t matter how it happened… just that it happened, and that we are still living with the consequences.

Just like if we get wiped out like that again, our children will be living the consequences.

the squish Nixon had a change to roll back the great society instead he doubled down on them

Uh, no. He didn’t. Even after mopping the floor with McGovern, he still had a Dem Congress loyal to the Great Society legislation that most of them helped pass.

nd brought us the EPa much like bush brought us No child left behind. Both will destory our nation soon.

Really? The EPA and the Dept of Ed is going to bring our country down faster than Medicaid and Medicare?

The actuarials disagree.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:02 AM

I’m less concerned with reversing it (although I live to see the day it is reversed) than I am about preventing it from happening again. We stood on the precipice of it with the last Congress. I’ve said repeatedly that we should thank our lucky stars that BHO wasn’t as skilled a politician as LBJ, or we’d all be really f**ked right now.

I think you need to expand your time line and give the liberals more credit. The losses in the 1960′s just like the flower power movement and the rest had their roots in events and trends decades earlier. It was prepared by liberals and socialists deliberately targeting education for a takeover and expanding the role and expectations of government.

Were we to suffer a wipeout in 2012, we’d be facing the same possibility as 2009-10, with the added little turd on top of BHO knowing better how to operate the levers of power in DC.

And that keeps me awake at night.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 1:55 AM

An election victory isn’t going to change anything unless we elect someone who will cut the government programs that create dependency which essentially equals a Democratic vote farm.

If we fail at that the rest means nothing. That is what you might call the industrial heartland of the Democratic machine.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:05 AM

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:05 AM

The strikeout at the top was meant to be a quote.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:06 AM

Have y’all seen this???

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:12 AM

Doesn’t matter how it happened… just that it happened

WTF? your entire argument is “how it happened” and how we can’t repeat it. so when you are shown reasons why it happend besides the fact of it “being goldwater’s fault” you switch to “it doesn’t matter?”

Just like if we get wiped out like that again, our children will be living the consequences.

hmmm we got wiped out like that by putting a moderate/liberal republican just like mitt up in 2008 and by our failure to disenage form bushism in 2006. And your answer is to reengage with bushism in the form of Mitt?

Really? The EPA and the Dept of Ed is going to bring our country down faster than Medicaid and Medicare?

The actuarials disagree.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Yes EPA is set to impose cap on CO2. they are driving businesses out of the country at a record pace. they are stopping energy production, minning, and forestry within the USA. The No child left behind bill is destorying our children ability to learn, making them train for a test much like teaching a rat how to go thru a maze. It is destroying the ability of the population to think critically and setting them up for despots to win elections.

we can always produce more wealth to pay for misguided programs. the economic pie is not a zero sum game. We can not do those things however if we do not have the education nor if we are not allowed to grow and thrive because of regulations like no Co2.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:12 AM

An election victory isn’t going to change anything unless we elect someone who will cut the government programs that create dependency which essentially equals a Democratic vote farm.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Oh, I agree. Which is why (among other reasons) I’ve been so hard on GWB. Twas truly a wasted opportunity.

But once again, I am far more interested in gaining and expanding GOP and conservative Congressional majorities. And I give SP credit where credit is due… she played a big role in doing that last time(although contrary to fan-boy opinion, she was far from alone in it).

And I hesitate, I mean really hesitate, to put that at risk, no matter the upside. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take that gamble… just that those who ask me to ignore that possibility are, IMHO, doing the party and the movement no favors.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:16 AM

O/T
=====

Posted: 12:00 AM

LePage calls to remove labor mural
By Susan M. Cover scover@mainetoday.com
MaineToday Media State House Writer

AUGUSTA — Labor leaders and the state’s biggest Latino group expressed outrage Wednesday at Gov. Paul LePage’s decision to remove a mural depicting workers from the Department of Labor’s headquarters and rename conference rooms in the building.
*************************
*************************

Matt Schlobohm, executive director of the Maine AFL-CIO, called the decision “insulting to working people, petty and shortsighted.”

“It seems the governor is much more interested in picking fights with labor than creating jobs that people so desperately want,” he said. “We believe their story deserves to be told on the walls of the Department of Labor.”

The 36-foot-long, 11-panel mural depicts the state’s labor history, including a shoe worker strike in Lewiston, female shipbuilders and striking papermakers in Jay.

It also highlights dangerous working conditions, long work hours and child labor, according to a 2008 memo from the Department of Labor.

LePage explained his decision on the Boston-based Howie Carr radio show late in the day.

“I’m trying to send a message to everyone in the state that the state of Maine looks at employees and employers equally, neutrally and on balance,” he said. “The mural sends a message that we’re one-sided, and I don’t want to send that message.”

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/lepage-calls-to-remove-labor-mural_2011-03-23.html
=============================

From Team Progressive

Maine Gov. Paul LePage Orders Labor History Mural Removed From State Offices
********************
********************

Maine Tea Party Gov. Paul LePage (R) has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the state’s Department of Labor offices, claiming they received “some complaints” from business owners. The Governor has also directed that eight conference rooms named after labor leaders — including Cesar Chavez — be renamed “after mountains, counties or something.”

The directive comes amidst rising tensions between the LePage Administration and organized labor over the governor’s support for a right-to-work bill and efforts to roll back the state’s child labor laws.

While the state’s AFL-CIO called the removal “mean-spirited”, a spokesman for the governor has said that the removal was not meant to “antagonize” labor, but rather to correct the office’s “one-sided decor.” In an e-mail to Labor Department employees, acting Chief Laura Boyett sought to explain the decision:
(more………….)

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/paul-lepage-labor-mural/

canopfor on March 24, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Have y’all seen this???

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:12 AM

OMG. That just blows my mind. Jamie Gorelick FBI director?

She returns yet again to haunt our dreams. I am getting more cynical with each passing day. That’s some scary sh!t

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:18 AM

The strikeout at the top was meant to be a quote.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:06 AM

DS did that once on purpose to OC to exact revenge, it was downright mean. \just kidding DS :)

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:18 AM

Grahamnesty will be the first to vote FOR her confirmation…

Let’s review — Author of the “wall”…Member of the 9-11 committee, which did 2 things — kept her from testifying and put a fox in charge of the henhouse…Headed Fannie Mae…Represented BP during the Gulf oil spill…

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Geo,

Your lil “annual” friend must’ve been “fertilized” today cuz she sure was spreading some sheeeeit tonite…

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:26 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:12 AM

WTF? your entire argument is “how it happened” and how we can’t repeat it. so when you are shown reasons why it happend besides the fact of it “being goldwater’s fault” you switch to “it doesn’t matter?”

No. What doesn’t matter is “it was the RINOs”, or “it was the media”, or “it was Kennedy”. What matters is everyone told the Right it was going to happen if they nominated Goldwater, and they went ahead and did it anyways.

And what further matters is we continue to pay the price of that folly. Even with the Reagan victories.

hmmm we got wiped out like that by putting a moderate/liberal republican just like mitt up in 2008 and by our failure to disenage form bushism in 2006. And your answer is to reengage with bushism in the form of Mitt?

No. We got wiped out because the American population got sick of interventionist folly in Iraq. Personally, I would advice our candidate to renounce that, whomever he or she is.

we can always produce more wealth to pay for misguided programs. the economic pie is not a zero sum game. We can not do those things however if we do not have the education nor if we are not allowed to grow and thrive because of regulations like no Co2.

The executive can rein in EPA, and I would hope eliminate the Dept of Ed, if by no other means than refusing to appoint people to it, and firing those who are there.

They have no such power to stop Medicaid or Medicare.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:26 AM

And I hesitate, I mean really hesitate, to put that at risk, no matter the upside. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take that gamble… just that those who ask me to ignore that possibility are, IMHO, doing the party and the movement no favors.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:16 AM

you make no sense. you admit go vPalin played a big role in getting conservatives elected and getting the GOp the house in 2010. but somehow you think in 2012 she will screw it all up.

Logic says if she was a net plus in 2010 then in 2012 at the top of the ticket her coattail should be even bigger.

If she was such a “risk” then her “help” in 2010 should have lost us seats. she wasn’t. She drove the debate, raised funds, got name recongition out for at risk candidates and carried several over the finish line. her endorsement was key in most states even in deep blue places like NY and Nj state. and her endorsement was called the “gold standard” by many. Palin showed more ability to get candidates elected in blue states in the general than Mitt did. All of mitt’s candidates in MA and Ca lost.

yet somehow you think in the last 4 months all of that has been reversed and now she would be a net drag on the ticket? totally bogus argument by you.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:29 AM

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:24 AM

I have a copy of the 911 commission report and seem to recall he name being mentioned once or twice. I have no time to re-read it but she was entirely culpable of the intel breakdown and yet she was on the 911 investigative committee.

But wasn’t she canned from the committee due to the wide-spread outrage?

I am nauseous over the possibility that she would ever be in any position of power again.

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:29 AM

All you need is for Romney to just get a couple of key states away from Obama – states that Obama won last time.

Michigan – would switch from Obama to Romney, if Mitt’s the nominee. And there are enough Mormons out west that a Romney nomination could very well make the difference in:

Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri. Possibly California could see a couple of points bump with Romney. Don’t think so? Did you forget about Prop 8 so soon? But, the key is the VP. Make it:

ROMNEY-RUBIO 2012!

Then you get Florida, Michigan, Nevada for sure! And possibly Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri. Not to mention California becomes seriously in play. The Dems will have to spend money (big money) for ads in Cali and that’s a losing strategy for them.

ROMNEY RUBIO 2012! That’s a winning ticket!

joncoltonis on March 24, 2011 at 2:31 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:16 AM

I’m with ya on the GOP gaining majorities in both chambers of Congress. However, Boehner and his “leadership team” haven’t shown much — so far. A majority in the Senate would still most likely include Grahamnesty, Snowe, Collins, McConnell, Brown and others who have shown their willingness to “cross the aisle” and support dems and dem programs. Not to mention, vote to confirm non-qualified, socialist/communist dem nominees to Cabinet and Judicial posts…

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:31 AM

you make no sense. you admit go vPalin played a big role in getting conservatives elected and getting the GOp the house in 2010. but somehow you think in 2012 she will screw it all up.

Logic says if she was a net plus in 2010 then in 2012 at the top of the ticket her coattail should be even bigger.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:29 AM

and you seem to think that there is no difference between campaigning on behalf of Republicans and conservatives, and actually heading the ticket.

There is, and the polls that you insist we all ignore, contrary to our better judgment, bear that out.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:32 AM

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:26 AM

Classic colo-rectal PDS flareup. :)

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:32 AM

No Geo,

She served her term on the 9-11 panel. There was talk of her testifying about her role in constructing the “wall” but that never materialized…

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:34 AM

joncoltonis on March 24, 2011 at 2:31 AM

That’s a fine theory, except for the fact that Obama didn’t win MO in 2008.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:35 AM

What matters is everyone told the Right it was going to happen if they nominated Goldwater, and they went ahead and did it anyways.

and I’m saying it would have happend no matter who we nominated. You had outside events that dictated a sweeping win for LBJ regardless of our candidate.

No. We got wiped out because the American population got sick of interventionist folly in Iraq. Personally, I would advice our candidate to renounce that, whomever he or she is.

2008 showed 2006 was more than about Iraq. And even if you point was correct. That was Bushism foreign policy. Or in other words the nation rejected bushism. if 2006 was about rejecting the foreign policy of bushism 2008 was about rejecting the domestic policy of bushism.

The executive can rein in EPA, and I would hope eliminate the Dept of Ed, if by no other means than refusing to appoint people to it, and firing those who are there.

They have no such power to stop Medicaid or Medicare.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:26 AM

Not since impoundment has been ruled unconsitutional they don’t. If congress funds Dept of Ed and EPA the POTUS must spend the funds.

All POTUS has the same power to stop all of these programs. The question is do they have the balls? Mitt certainly doesn’t. he won’t even committe to defunding Obamacare let alone medicare.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:36 AM

And I hesitate, I mean really hesitate, to put that at risk, no matter the upside.

Put what at risk?

They haven’t done a God damned thing!

Are you talking about that $61 billion dollar kabuki show?

That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take that gamble… just that those who ask me to ignore that possibility are, IMHO, doing the party and the movement no favors.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:16 AM

There is nothing to risk unless they deliver the goods and so far they haven’t delivered anything but smoke and mirrors. You will perhaps suggest that next time they will do what they have promised a dozen times before?

The party and the movement are little more than a discussion of some sports team unless they stand for something more than just Duh…winning.

You have to know just how utterly pathetic the chump change they are talking about really is?

So what does this victory mean if they refuse to make serious cuts? It means less than nothing. It means that conservatism is tied to hollow promises and hypocrisy that look no different than Democratic politics.

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:34 AM

Unreal. Wherever she treads corruption follows in her wake. They no longer make any pretense of propriety; its in your face now.

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:46 AM

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Put what at risk?

They haven’t done a God damned thing!

What? You’d be happier if Nancy Pelosi was still in charge?

I’m not terribly happy about their progress,but I also realize they have only so much leeway to work with, with the senate and the WH in Dem hands. Try to remember, it’s the art of the possible.

There is nothing to risk unless they deliver the goods and so far they haven’t delivered anything but smoke and mirrors

They’ve held the House for less than 3 months. Believe it or not, these things take time, especially when the budget hasn’t been passed for this year, never mind the next fiscal year. We need to hold their feet to the fire, true; but we should take care not to burn bridges while doing so.

You have to know just how utterly pathetic the chump change they are talking about really is?

Well, not the ones Rand Paul is talking about, that’s fer sure.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:46 AM

and you seem to think that there is no difference between campaigning on behalf of Republicans and conservatives, and actually heading the ticket.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:32 AM

yes a big difference. Gov Palin at the top of the ticket would be even more effective since it will be her vision and her strength and her work ethic and her fight and her control and her message and she will not have to relie on the candidate being imperfect.

As far as the polls. you are the one ignoring the results they are saying. Palin’s poll numbers are a function of the negative attacks made on her. They have reached as close to bottom as they are going to go. Polls show her down anywhere from 8-15pts against Obama. Mitt and huck’s polls show them at the top of their game. All positive news for the last 2 years. Most people don’t even know about romneycare or that huck released 1000′s of criminals onto the street. And their poll numbers till with all the positive news shows they can’t beat Obama. Not one poll shows Mitt beating Obama. Not one. If he can’t beat obama at this stage in the polls he can’t beat him ever. His neagtives will only go up. he is at the top of his game right now. He has avoided all bad press for the last 2 years. He has been in hiding and still with all his poll tested plays he still can’t beat Obama.

Mitt will tank as the DNC unleash the dirt they hav eon him. His fee increases, his helathcare bill, his increase debt oin MA, his religion. his close ties to wall street, his lobbyist friends, his flipflops. Mitt will be destoryed like Mondale was.

Mondala refused to change course and rule out tax increase just like Mitt has refused to chang ecourse on Mittcare. he will be hammered from all sides. He does not fight back he can not fight back.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:47 AM

The thought of Jamie Gorelick being FBI Director makes me want to throw up. This woman should be in prison or exiled. She has done nothing but profit off of ruining America. What she did at Frannie&Freddie should have earned her a long prison sentence. She’s also now the atty. of record for Duke in the lawsuit brought by the lacrosse players and using every nasty trick in the book. She got called out by a Judge for coming periously close to lying in a brief.

hboulware on March 24, 2011 at 2:51 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:36 AM

If congress funds Dept of Ed and EPA the POTUS must spend the funds.

I’m curious what would happen if a POTUS simply refused to appoint people. They may have to spend the funds, but if nobody’s there to carry out the work, then nobody’s there to carry out the work.

All POTUS has the same power to stop all of these programs

POTUS has no power to stop those programs, other than to signor veto legislation. That power rests almost exclusively with Congress, no matter the POTUS’ balls.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:52 AM

hboulware on March 24, 2011 at 2:51 AM

I would feel safer if she and Charles Manson were to swap places.

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 2:54 AM

What? You’d be happier if Nancy Pelosi was still in charge?

Yes, if they are going to spend the country into bankruptcy I would rather have the Democrats in charge when it happens.

Try to remember, it’s the art of the possible.

So they keep telling us year after year and election after election. Nothing changes but be careful or the boogerman Democrats will get ya!

We need to hold their feet to the fire, true;

Why?

Why do we have to hold their feet to the fire if they aren’t worthless greasy weasels?

but we should take care not to burn bridges while doing so.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:46 AM

Why? They are not my friends or my pals and I could care less about their feelings. What I want are results and if they won’t deliver then they are useless.

We wouldn’t put up with this BS from a pizza delivery guy who showed up empty handed after the fifth time you ordered, so why should we put up with it when it matters so much more?

sharrukin on March 24, 2011 at 2:56 AM

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Gov Palin at the top of the ticket would be even more effective since it will be her vision and her strength and her work ethic and her fight and her control and her message and she will not have to relie on the candidate being imperfect.

Uh huh. Because candidate Palin would be perfect, right?

With that, we’ve officially crossed the line from argument to hagiography.

And as I have movers to deal with in the morning, I will bid you all adieu.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:56 AM

Yeah, me too. But, I don’t think she could survive a confirmation hearing. The only way to get her in is recess appt. and it’s too late for that.

hboulware on March 24, 2011 at 2:56 AM

I’m curious what would happen if a POTUS simply refused to appoint people. They may have to spend the funds, but if nobody’s there to carry out the work, then nobody’s there to carry out the work.

i would imagine Congress would pass bills defining exactly how POTUS would have to spend the funds. How many people to hire etc. Not sure if they can. I’m sure we will find out in 2013 as Pres Palin stops these depts cold.

POTUS has no power to stop those programs, other than to signor veto legislation. That power rests almost exclusively with Congress, no matter the POTUS’ balls.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:52 AM

Hence my claim that all POTUS has the same power to stop all the programs. Power has always been a fuction of the will to use it. If the POTUS wants to have this fight with congress he/she can. If his/her mandate is big enough they can enact change. they can issue EO’s, they can hire and fire. while their power is not unlimited they do hav ethe power to gum up the worls if they want to.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 2:59 AM

I’m outta here Geo, et al…

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 3:03 AM

Uh huh. Because candidate Palin would be perfect, right?

With that, we’ve officially crossed the line from argument to hagiography.

And as I have movers to deal with in the morning, I will bid you all adieu.

JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2011 at 2:56 AM

ROFL…nice try. but not what I said. Palin would be the perfect candidate for Palin to campaign for. she doesn’t have to worry about an “i’m not a withc commercial” She doesn’t have to worry about about herself getting cold feet and trying to distance herself from herself like a Miller.

a candidate Palin has complete control over a candidate Palin. Unlike a kingmaker Palin has over say a Miller or COD or haley. Kingmakers are required to work around the imperfections of the candidates they choose to endorse. Taking the good with the bad.

Candidates simply have to work with themselves. Very big difference. since Gov Palin was effective as a kingmaker with all the faults of the candidates she endorseed it stands to reason she would be more effective as a candidate in complete control of those imperfections…

oh and I see you once again totally ignored the comment about the polls and the results they are showing. Must mean you have no answer to that point.

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 3:03 AM

Adios muchacho!

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 3:13 AM

Oh, unseen just admit it. You worship ‘Saint Sarah’ and don’t try to deny it. ;)

My sources tell me that JohnGalt23 worships that leather clad stud of a Libertarian Nick Gillespie.

chief on March 24, 2011 at 3:23 AM

chief on March 24, 2011 at 3:23 AM

lol…with that I think I’ll call it a night……

It is amazing how when the ABP are losing the argument they shut down debate by using the cult card isn’t it? reminds me of the Obama idiots playing the race card to shut off debate…

unseen on March 24, 2011 at 3:27 AM

I gotta recommend this post by karenhasfreedom. Its a gem.

Link

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Unseen. Yeah, I always love the cult card.

Speaking of the Palin cult, I need to go light the rest of the candles at my altar of Palin.

I usually like to have all of the candles lit before 3 AM. Plus, I have some new pics of Palin in Israel that I need to add to my growing altar.

I am slacking off on my worship of ‘Saint Sarah’, so I had better get going.

Goodnight all.

chief on March 24, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Let’s review — Author of the “wall”…Member of the 9-11 committee, which did 2 things — kept her from testifying and put a fox in charge of the henhouse…Headed Fannie Mae…Represented BP during the Gulf oil spill…

Gohawgs on March 24, 2011 at 2:24 AM

To make it worse, during her time at Fannie Mae, she made off with 27 million in bonuses when Fannie Mae was nothing but worthless paper under her reign.

karenhasfreedom on March 24, 2011 at 3:47 AM

chief, your post was funny :)

karenhasfreedom on March 24, 2011 at 3:49 AM

All this talk about Mitt: dead in the water: MittCare.
Rand Jr. or Senior: dead in the water. A Dr. two months in the Senate has no chance.

Most of you here (most) are erudite and learned regarding political history. But let’s look at the present and reality.

Obama is a slicing, dicing usurper who is set on eradicating your/our livelihoods and the U.S as we know it. He is on a mission to destroy us. My business and second source of income have dried up and died due to Obama. How will I save my home/my only asset as a 57 year old? You know we small biz owners can’t go to the government troughs because there aren’t any (and I don’t want any).

Can we please focus on solutions, here? Not CNN or PPP or other liberal polls. /Helloo HA!!!!!!

The O is taking us/me down.

I will NOT go down, ultimately, as I am an American survior – any more than Sarah Palin will sit down and shut up. But can we please focus on solutions???

I/WE could use a few.

Opinionator on March 24, 2011 at 3:55 AM

0bama?
-10

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2011 at 4:00 AM

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2011 at 4:00 AM

Good to see you punch in for the night shift. We need to hammer Obie 24/7.

Had rain 3 nights in a row. Chilly at night but we are a bunch of wussies weather wise. Anything short of perfection people freak out. Actually we don’t even have weather that you can talk about the way people do in other places.

I can’t even recall the last time I heard thunder or saw lightning. We have more earthquake tremors than thunder.

Geochelone on March 24, 2011 at 4:10 AM

Oh, and to the two guys here who were laying $1,000 bets? Would you be willing to grant a 10K 2nd at a reasonable rate over three years? That would give me a minute to breathe while I find another source of income. My home is not under water. I have plenty of equity. . . but no banks will lend for a second.

Reality.

Opinionator on March 24, 2011 at 4:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4