The great experiment. Time for Cruz, King or Palin in 2016

posted at 7:01 pm on August 10, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Break out either the champagne or the sharpened stones, because it’s well past time that we found some sort of consensus on a question which has been chomping at our collective heels for the last two presidential election cycles. And with a bit of focus, we might actually come to some conclusions as to how we handle this before the Hillary/Christie Show sucks up all of the Nielson ratings. I speak, of course, of the now seemingly eternal battle over the GOP primary battle and the unending complaints that the party’s voters seem to keep electing squishy moderates when a true conservative could have carried the day.

One half of this theory now has a two season track record of proving true; both John McCain and Mitt Romney were widely lambasted in conservative circles – including significant portions of the tight-knit group of the Hot Air commentariat – as being far too weak on conservative doctrine as defined in one or more of the three legs of the conservative stool. (i.e. fiscal conservatives, so-cons and foreign policy hawks.) There’s not much room to argue with proponents of this theory, given the notable lack of President McCain and President Romney memorial libraries being planned across the land.

But what if 2008 had produced a nominee of Huckabee or Brownback? In the battle of 2012, would history have been playing out in a vastly different fashion if Santorum or Cain had carried the banner? Barring the invention of some sort of alternate universe, parallel time machine, we’re never going to know. But maybe… just maybe… the theory can finally be put to the test.

My own views on this are no secret to long time readers, coming from the let’s not go embracing the crazy and alienating the middle crowd, but it’s not as if I’ve suggested a viable alternative either. With things looking more and more like an inevitable Hillary nomination for 2016, this may be the time to see if the metal hardened in the fires of the true conservative belly can stand up to the test. What’s the worst that could happen? We lose? That’s becoming something of a habit lately anyway.

Is it too early to have this fight? Of course it is. But the early bird gets the Iowa worm, and both the media and the “establishment” icons aren’t sitting on their thumbs. The great Liberal television bastion is already on board with defining Ted Cruz as either stupid, evil or crazy. The aforementioned not-president Romney is helpfully dispensing advice about not nominating conservatives who just can’t win.

Watching the early responses from the most conservative bastions on the web, a mad rush to nominate Christie would just be round three of losing fight and the next chapter in the collapse of the GOP. Rubio is all ganged up and went soft on immigration. Rand Paul is still popular in many quarters, but he’s got that whole “crazy dad and no use of the military” thing going. And I’m sure Bobby Jindal must have done something disappointing by now.

So what say we conduct the experiment that could – and I emphasize could here – finally settle the question once and for all. Let’s just nominate somebody who has welded on all three legs of the stool and leaves not a sliver of daylight for the squishiness question. A nominee who will state without ambiguity that we’re going to bomb the crap out of anyone who is actively working against our interests. One who flatly proclaims that there will be no abortions for anyone and new Supreme Court justices will be inclined to overturn Roe v Wade. They will solemnly aver that we will slash both taxes and spending in a serious fashion, consequences be damned, and that any money spent on immigration reform will go toward arresting and deporting illegals while massively strengthening the borders. And if the only path available to deal with argumentative Democrats is to shut the government down, then By God they will personally be the one to turn out the lights as the last one out the door.

But who is left to fill the bill? As I indicated at the top – with apologies to any of your other favorites – we should narrow it down to people who have the name recognition to at least launch a viable campaign and have actively indicated at least some interest in running. Sounds like Ted Cruz or Peter King to me. And, yes, let’s toss in Sarah Palin who is far from past her prime and has never entirely ruled out the possibility, while clearly meeting all of the criteria above. (I really want to include Rick Santorum as well, but we already gave him a turn. Besides, Dr. Joyner said he can’t win.) I’m not saying anyone else should be barred from participating in the democratic process if they wish to grab for the brass ring here. But if the seemingly divided Republican electorate is really and truly interested in settling this question (rather than just having another excuse to carp at each other endlessly to the end of time) then the opportune moment for this experiment has surely come. We tried it one way in 2008 and 2012, and it’s only fair to give the other side a chance to walk the walk, so let’s get everyone from both sides on board.

And while we’re at it, let’s take a page from Ed’s book in terms of the debates. Leave them off the networks entirely and take them out of the hands of the media experts who have no interest beyond spurring infighting highlight reel clips. I’m not saying to pitch them softball questions, but keep them honest on policy issues which matter to primary voters. Hold the debates online. Those who really want to fairly evaluate the candidates will find them and the networks will still air clips from them to fill the vacuum.

Then, in November of 2016, we should know one of two things. If the uber-conservative candidate racks up a 300ish plus electoral vote victory similar to Obama’s last outing, the critics will be vindicated and can authoritatively tell the RINOs to STFU and STFD. Just be happy with the win, accept the new paradigm and everyone can move on with their lives.

But what if they wind up taking a worse beating than Romney at the hands of Hillary? (Or whoever the Democrats nominate, assuming there is somebody out there besides the Candidate of Destiny Part Two.) Then the opposite would be true, the RINOs can happily keep up their fight to win over the middle and the debate will be settled once and for all.

But, of course, there is a third and possibly worse potential outcome.

What if the candidate in question lost the popular vote by 4 or 5 percent, essentially running up the same score in the same states that Mitt did? What sort of message does that send? The reason it might be the worst possible outcome is that we’d be left with the prospect of a nation which has simply drifted too far away from the entire idea of conservatism and the GOP to deliver a win at the national level for any candidate. All of these “establishment v True Conservative” arguments would have been for nothing, since it never really mattered anyway.

It would be an interesting test run to say the least, and I’m not just positing this as some sort of caustic thought experiment. If you get one of them to the top of the stack in a primary race, I’ll be on board. I really want to know the answer to this one.

UPDATE: (Jazz) Doug Mataconis weighs in with one possibility I didn’t consider, and I don’t see this as the likely outcome.

The one flaw I see in the whole strategy of letting the hard-right pick whatever nominee they want in 2016 and seeing the chips fall where they may, is that I think its unlikely that strident conservatives are going to admit defeat even when its presented to them on a silver platter. Much as they blame the GOP’s losses in 2012 and 2008 on the alleged fact that the candidates in question weren’t conservative enough, they’d find a way to blame a 2016 loss on something other than a failure of conservative ideology. The so-called “mainstream media” is always a convenient target, and would likely be one in the wake of a 2016 loss as well. They’ll argue that the so-called Establishment GOP abandoned their candidate and failed to get behind him or her during the campaign. If necessary, they’ll blame the candidate him or herself. At no point will they actually admit that the candidate lost because they dragged the party too far to the right.


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 6 7 8

How about we not nominate someone who made his bones carping about fellow Republicans. After devastating losses under McRINO and Gentleman Mitt the last thing the GOP needs is another candidate who writes the script for the DNC.

paulus1 on August 11, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Sarah Palin would have defeated Barack Obama in 2012. She should have pulled the trigger and gone for it. Barry Obama’s Marxist class warfare would not have worked against Sarah as it did against Mitt.

paulus1 on August 11, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Ted Cruz would have my vote. Love the guy!
bluegill on August 11, 2013 at 8:20 PM

hmmm …. so the #CruzMissile who backs Sarah Palin 100% and who has said publicly more than once, including at CPAC 2013, that he would not be in the US Senate without Palin’s input …. you love the guy and so back his judgment, right?

and if he decides to back Sarah Palin to take over the US Budget when Obama’s term is terminated, you will also give her your FULL SUPPORT too, right?

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM

It is extremely clear to me that:

1. the DC Status Quo has got America to the point of > 100% GDP in DEBT, and near destruction

2. the US govt must be reformed, undergo a controlled IMPLOSION

3. there must be an EXPLOSION of American Energy development asap

(points 2 and 3 simultaneously)

4. Neocon FP/Miltary Policy must be shelved in favor of a return to the policy developed during the Reagan years

5. A Leader found who UNDERSTANDS the above 4 points and can be trusted to manage points 2, 3 and 4 successfully.

NB:

Points 2 and 3 cannot/will not happen unless the Manager involved is NOT4SALE …. NOT BEHOLDEN to anybody, … just The American People

THEREFORE, we either need Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz as POTUS (I see nobody else who could succeed at the task required)

if they sort out between themselves, who it will be, that is fine with me … if it is POTUS Cruz, he will need to hand over the WHOLE implosion/explosion thing to Madame Steel Spine, and rubber stamp her activities, since he has no experience in these management areas.

He can take care of the rest of the POTUS job

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM

She is tiresome, resembles some of the former Temple of Mitt people at Race42012, or some other long time detractors that hung around here after the 2008 election,

narciso on August 11, 2013 at 9:06 PM

It is extremely clear to me that:

1. the DC Status Quo has got America to the point of > 100% GDP in DEBT, and near destruction

2. the US govt must be reformed, undergo a controlled IMPLOSION

3. there must be an EXPLOSION of American Energy development asap

(points 2 and 3 simultaneously)

4. Neocon FP/Miltary Policy must be shelved in favor of a return to the policy developed during the Reagan years

5. A Leader found who UNDERSTANDS the above 4 points and can be trusted to manage points 2, 3 and 4 successfully.

NB:

Points 2 and 3 cannot/will not happen unless the Manager involved is NOT4SALE …. NOT BEHOLDEN to anybody, … just The American People

THEREFORE, we either need Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz as POTUS (I see nobody else who could succeed at the task required)

if they sort out between themselves, who it will be, that is fine with me … if it is POTUS Cruz, he will need to hand over the WHOLE implosion/explosion thing to Madame Steel Spine, and rubber stamp her activities, since he has no experience in these management areas.

He can take care of the rest of the POTUS job

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Cruz and Palin won’t run. Not in 2016, not ever. It is up to the American people, but they have to be willing to take things into their own hands. Nullify, baby!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Cruz and Palin won’t run. Not in 2016, not ever. It is up to the American people, but they have to be willing to take things into their own hands. Nullify, baby!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I didn’t say anything about ‘running’ – I presume you mean 2016

There is a huge amount of scandal water to run under the political bridge first and be resolved also .. before 2016

I think the next POTUS could well be a result of ‘standing for the high office’ rather than ‘running for POTUS’

we shall see …

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Yes, because that is a more likely prospect, seriously,

narciso on August 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I didn’t say anything about ‘running’ – I presume you mean 2016

There is a huge amount of scandal water to run under the political bridge first and be resolved also .. before 2016

I think the next POTUS could well be a result of ‘standing for the high office’ rather than ‘running for POTUS’

we shall see …

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Unfortunitly this thread is about 2016, what a waste of time.

We all should be looking and working toward 2014, not playing flavor of the month.

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I presume you mean 2016

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM

my mistake gryphon202 … of course you meant 2016 … you ‘said’ 2016, … I messed up

**__**

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM

We all should be looking and working toward 2014, not playing flavor of the month.

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I agree …

my post refers to ‘before 2016′ DEO VOLENTE

the #CruzMissile is not talking 2016, he is focusing on the now, Defunding the Obamacare BULLSCHMIDT and then I believe it’s gonna be all 2014, whether the emasculated GOP Leadership caves/submits to the Phoney on sep 30 or not

I think 2014 will determine whether Constitutional America will be rescued and restoration started … before she becomes Greece (120% of GDP in DEBT)

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Sarah Palin: The Undefeated – Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiFOkBje7cE

Sen. Ted Cruz Introduces Gov. Sarah Palin at CPAC 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TioRdF-Ilc4

Fallon on August 11, 2013 at 9:40 PM

the #CruzMissile is not talking 2016, he is focusing on the now, Defunding the Obamacare BULLSCHMIDT and then I believe it’s gonna be all 2014, whether the emasculated GOP Leadership caves/submits to the Phoney on sep 30 or not

I think 2014 will determine whether Constitutional America will be rescued and restoration started … before she becomes Greece (120% of GDP in DEBT)

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:36 PM

You make some salient points..:)

The battle for the GOP is coming.

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 9:50 PM

the #CruzMissile is not talking 2016, he is focusing on the now, Defunding the Obamacare BULLSCHMIDT and then I believe it’s gonna be all 2014, whether the emasculated GOP Leadership caves/submits to the Phoney on sep 30 or not

I think 2014 will determine whether Constitutional America will be rescued and restoration started … before she becomes Greece (120% of GDP in DEBT)

exodus2011 on August 11, 2013 at 9:36 PM

You make some salient points..:)

The battle for the GOP is coming.

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 9:50 PM

The battle for the GOP is wasted time and effort.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM

the whole strategy of letting the hard-right pick whatever nominee they want

Stopped reading right there. There’s your sign.

faraway on August 11, 2013 at 10:00 PM

The battle for the GOP is wasted time and effort.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM

So you want to go third party?

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The battle for the GOP is wasted time and effort.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Or you’ve given up….

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 10:02 PM

I bluegill, love Palins guy, Ted Cruz. He would have my vote. He could have bluegills baby’s. Love the guy!

bluegill on August 11, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Bmore on August 11, 2013 at 10:05 PM

The battle for the GOP is wasted time and effort.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM

.
Only because they can no longer compete on a national level.
.
Being a minority sure does suck.

FlaMurph on August 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Only because they can no longer compete on a national level.
.
Being a minority sure does suck.

FlaMurph on August 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM

My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus.

Father to a murdered GOP, husband to a murdered conservative cause. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

faraway on August 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Father to a murdered GOP, husband to a murdered conservative cause. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

faraway on August 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM

.
I’m thinking next.

FlaMurph on August 11, 2013 at 10:15 PM

I say if the She Wolf gets the nomination, Palin’s the one. Time for a good Cat fight and I think Palin isn’t afraid, or inexperienced, in regard to throwing the first Bar Mop, and taking down a Wench by her hair. If the Dems Nom is a dude, it’s Cruze. Tired of the GOPe. DONE WITH THE LIKES OF MCCAIN, GRAHAM, BOEHNER, etc. IF I SEE A CHRISPY CREAM OR ANOTHER RHINO, I’m done.

Whiterock on August 11, 2013 at 10:23 PM

The GOP can only win if they target white voters in a blatant way, and they won’t do it, and that’s why its going to die as a party

The GOP will betray you

True_King on August 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM

No to your first statement, yes to the second. If the GOP targets white voters ‘in a blatant way’, then the Republican Party repudiates its own founding principles. The GOP was founded, after all, to make right the statement that all men are created equal. If the Republican Party actively and loudly promotes a genuinely color-blind society, one in which skin color and ethnicity is irrelevant to the sociopolitical life of the country, then it has a chance to broaden its appeal. Remember: Asians, Jews, and other ethnically based demographic groups with cultures that stress individual merit and striving for achievement are almost always excluded from Affirmative Action programs, for example. The Black community, on the other hand, has been utterly devastated by Democratic policies and programs. These racially based policies and programs don’t work. It can be proven they don’t work, and that’s the argument to make. Your way–a Whites Only party–will inevitably lead to political extinction.

To your second point, yes, the GOP will betray you. This is because the GOP Establishment views its conservative base with contempt–a contempt which the base freely returns. Mutual contempt is not a glue that holds anything together.

troyriser_gopftw on August 11, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I’m a Mexican, pure brown pride here.

If you haven’t noticed, the war has already been waged against white America, and it’s getting its a$$ kicked.

I’m not talking about policies, I’m talking about politics, and racial politics works fantastic. Try going to a local meeting of La Raza here in Tucson AZ and tell me racial politics doesn’t work.

The most important point is that you’re ignoring thousands of years of recorded history of TRIBAL warfare.

Tribes will eventually gravitate towards each other when the crap hits the fan. It’s natural. What you ask for if unnatural. And Marxist’s exploit it to the max.

There’s only One who can maintain peace amongst the tribes, and that is The Creator of all tribes, and He can’t Return soon enough.

True_King on August 11, 2013 at 10:26 PM

It’s clear by this thread the GOP will lose in 2016. Most voters are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Unless the GOP can come to grips with that, then 2016 will be the last hurrah. Both for the GOP and probably the nation.

The social issues the GOP carries are a now clearly a loser. Abortion is a state issue, gay marriage is now a state issue. These belong to the states and that IS the position the GOP needs to adopt or it is destined for the dust bin of history.

old school on August 11, 2013 at 10:29 PM

The battle for the GOP is wasted time and effort.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Or you’ve given up….

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Giving up on the GOP != giving up on America. Unless you really do believe that the GOP is America, in which case I find you worthy only of scorn and ridicule.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 10:35 PM

The battle for the GOP is wasted time and effort.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM

So you want to go third party?

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 10:01 PM

As for this ridiculously stupid question, the system is broken. Replacing one party with another equally corrupt party will accomplish nothing. And so I intend to work outside the system with my state legislature, and encourage others to do the same.

Nullify, baby!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 10:37 PM

“The battle for the GOP” assumes there’s anything worth saving in the GOP. There is not. The whole question on which Jazz’s original essay pivots is being asked about 15 years or so too late.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 10:39 PM

That’s a much more quixotic exercise, the GOP isn’t dead, it’s office holders are merely not bold enough for the challenge,

narciso on August 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM

IF I SEE A CHRISPY CREAM OR ANOTHER RHINO, I’m done.

Whiterock on August 11, 2013 at 10:23 PM

A critical mass of us are done. There will be no more GOP if they go RINO again.

rrpjr on August 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM

That’s a much more quixotic exercise, the GOP isn’t dead, it’s office holders are merely not bold enough for the challenge,

narciso on August 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM

I’ll take door number two..:)

idesign on August 11, 2013 at 10:47 PM

That’s a much more quixotic exercise, the GOP isn’t dead, it’s office holders are merely not bold enough for the challenge,

narciso on August 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM

And we’ll be right back here discussing what went wrong in 2014 and 2016. I’d bet money on it if I had any money to bet.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 10:50 PM

That’s a much more quixotic exercise, the GOP isn’t dead, it’s office holders are merely not bold enough for the challenge,
narciso on August 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Exactly.

To be honest, it’s tiresome to see the “nullify!” and “let it burn!” and “r-word!” screaming people populate this comment section. These wackadoodles always sing the same song and try to dampen the enthusiasm of people who are rightly excited by some politicians, like Cruz and others, who show great promise. The “don’t participate in the system!” wackadoodles are as bad as any leftist.

bluegill on August 11, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Exactly.

To be honest, it’s tiresome to see the “nullify!” and “let it burn!” and “r-word!” screaming people populate this comment section. These wackadoodles always sing the same song and try to dampen the enthusiasm of people who are rightly excited by some politicians, like Cruz and others, who show great promise. The “don’t participate in the system!” wackadoodles are as bad as any leftist.

bluegill on August 11, 2013 at 10:52 PM

GFY, gill. I’ll be making a real difference long after you tire out your wrist from marking your ballots and masturbating over the next rising GOP star.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 10:53 PM

I missed your comments when you posted them. If you’re still around and want your own history lesson/spanking then just say so. There are enough to go around.

alchemist19 on August 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

You already lost the history lesson, but go ahead and respond. That sundial is still going.

So, please enlighten me on how Palin’s statement is false because no bells were being rung.

When you fail at doing that, you can pick up your semantic argument against her dialect. I’ll be waiting for your discussion on how her semantic and pragmatic meanings were identical.

Just in case you forgot:

Hey Sparky, looks like you missed these sources from the article…LOL

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville

Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim.

idesign on August 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM

You lost handily on your claim that Palin was historically inaccurate because there were not shots fired or bells rung. Now you play semantics with a new argument (namely that Palin stated that Revere did the ringing and shooting) to avoid pulling your head out of the hole you stuck it in and admitting that you were wrong.

So, tell me, linguistically, what did Palin’s statement mean pragmatically?

When you figure that out, do the same for this:

you can visit the Massachusetts Historical Society which has in their possession an actual letter written by Revere himself detailing his own personal account of the famous ride that contains no mention whatsoever of bells or warning shots or anything else of that nature.

I’ll set a sun dial (credits to Del).

Pattosensei on August 10, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Pattosensei on August 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM

The social issues the GOP carries are a now clearly a loser. Abortion is a state issue, gay marriage is now a state issue. These belong to the states and that IS the position the GOP needs to adopt or it is destined for the dust bin of history.

old school on August 11, 2013 at 10:29 PM

You’re wrong right out of the gate. Abortion is a federal issue, thanks to Roe v. Wade. Speaking of abortion, remember when the Democratic line was ‘safe, legal, and rare’? In 2011, it was found that 42% of minority women in New York City had had at least one abortion. Safe? Recently, Democratic Texas state legislators made national headlines by attempting to block legislation that would’ve ensured abortion clinics met the hygenic standards of a hot dog stand. Legal? The President and his allies on the issue advocate late-term abortion up to and including the ninth month moment of birth. That is, by any measure, the extremist position on the issue. Abortion advocates testifying on the floor of Congress have claimed that it should be ‘between a woman and her doctor’ if the child should be killed after birth, advocating outright infanticide, but credit where it’s due: at least they’re logically consistent.

You should also refresh your memory of history. The vehement slavery abolitionists of the newly formed Republican Party prior to (and during) the Civil War were considered the extremists of their day. It’s fair to say their position on the issue has been vindicated.

Either the GOP stands for something or it doesn’t. If all it stands for are the ‘I’ve got mine you get yours’ economic issues so dear to you (and to the big money donors of the GOP Establishment), I guarantee the Republican Party won’t last out the decade. Those you and yours sneeringly refer to as ‘Socons’ will leave, followed by those who don’t happen to be big money donors to the GOP Establishment since the GOP Establishment frankly doesn’t care about anyone else.

The people driving ‘immigration reform’ in the Republican Party are those salivating at the thought of all that sweet, cheap labor when millions of low-wage immigrants are injected into the labor force. If they are what drives the Republican Party, I want no part of it.

troyriser_gopftw on August 11, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Cruz and Palin won’t run. Not in 2016, not ever. It is up to the American people, but they have to be willing to take things into their own hands. Nullify, baby!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I’m all for states attempting nullification, but you sound like you are arguing a false choice. You can attempt to get good people elected and pursue nullification at the same time.

I assume you don’t intend to discourage people from looking for good conservative (“hard right” – Jazz) candidates, but it does come off that way quite often.

Pattosensei on August 11, 2013 at 11:07 PM

The biggest flaw with the great experiment idea is the belief that the outcome of the election is solely determined by the Republican nominee.

I don’t think that’s the case. 2008 was not lost because McCain wasn’t conservative enough. 2012 wasn’t lost because we nominated Romney instead of Governor Oops.

Mister Mets on August 11, 2013 at 11:08 PM

McCain lost because he gave up, Romney certainly acted like he pulled his punches, informally,

narciso on August 11, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Cruz and Palin won’t run. Not in 2016, not ever. It is up to the American people, but they have to be willing to take things into their own hands. Nullify, baby!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I’m all for states attempting nullification, but you sound like you are arguing a false choice. You can attempt to get good people elected and pursue nullification at the same time.

I assume you don’t intend to discourage people from looking for good conservative (“hard right” – Jazz) candidates, but it does come off that way quite often.

Pattosensei on August 11, 2013 at 11:07 PM

I am of the personal opinion that it’s a waste of time, energy, and money. As with all matters of opinion, YMMV. But given that Obama was elected twice, Marco Rubio and John McCain are lying sacks of shit, and people crow incessantly about the feared inevitability of Republican-forced amnesty, I can’t help but wonder at what point people’s tolerance for this shit will break — or for that matter, if it ever will. My guess is that most Americans, including the ones that call themselves “conservative,” would rather live in comfort under despotism than have to sacrifice any amount of that comfort for freedom.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 11:16 PM

troyriser_gopftw on August 11, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Your post refuted nothing of what I said.

old school on August 11, 2013 at 11:23 PM

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 11:16 PM

My mileage varies. I see your point, but I don’t agree that both cannot be done. Anyhow, just wanted to assure myself that you were aware.

Good night. I’m headed to the sack.

Pattosensei on August 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM

wackadoodles are as bad as any leftist.

bluegill on August 11, 2013 at 10:52 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…do you have an agent?
…you’re a freak!…I think people would pay…just too look!

KOOLAID2 on August 11, 2013 at 11:34 PM

What a stupid title. Why should it be a “great experiment” to nominate a conservative. It should be what we ordinarily do.

rrpjr on August 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM

My mileage varies. I see your point, but I don’t agree that both cannot be done. Anyhow, just wanted to assure myself that you were aware.

Good night. I’m headed to the sack.

Pattosensei on August 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM

You do what you gotta do, I guess. The GOP is no longer worthy of my support, and whoever chooses to work within it does so without a thin red cent of my money, or any support outside of maybe a vote.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Dang it! Beat me to it!

Bmore on August 11, 2013 at 11:37 PM

What a stupid title. Why should it be a “great experiment” to nominate a conservative. It should be what we ordinarily do.

rrpjr on August 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM

I ask myself that same question.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 11:37 PM

If by “great experiment” you mean “approach that demonstrably yielded massive landslides in 1980 and 1984″, then yeah, I’d say let’s roll those dice.

Cylor on August 11, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Your post refuted nothing of what I said.

old school on August 11, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Untrue. You said social issues, particularly abortion, were state matters. I refuted that by noting that abortion is, in fact, a federal matter given the all-encompassing sweep of Roe v. Wade. So either you’re being disingenuous because you’re an arrogant jerk who really doesn’t like granting a point in an argument or you’re just being dense. You know very well abortion is not solely a state matter.

troyriser_gopftw on August 11, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Untrue. You said social issues, particularly abortion, were state matters. I refuted that by noting that abortion is, in fact, a federal matter given the all-encompassing sweep of Roe v. Wade. So either you’re being disingenuous because you’re an arrogant jerk who really doesn’t like granting a point in an argument or you’re just being dense. You know very well abortion is not solely a state matter.

troyriser_gopftw on August 11, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Follow my nullification plans, and abortion WILL most certainly be a state matter. Along with highway funding, marriage recognition, and a whole host of other issues that the constitution does not specifically address.

9th and 10th amendments; nullify, baby!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 11:59 PM

The left puts up the most extreme leftist people they can find and the right fails to even make am elementary attempt to oppose, expose, or fight for the nations and freedom; because no less is at stake.
We fail to counter or educated other than a harruph here and there and a phoney investigation, with only a runaway truck ramp as the goal down the road. We hire hit men like Rove to fight our own but fail to do the same to the bad guys. The GOP fights its base, taking down their leaders publically (Palin, Cruz) while tossing RINO softballs at the enemy enabling them ever more boldly–and they are America’s enemy–for the political goals they seek.
Frankly, it’s now too little too late,for the hapless co-ruling right. There have been far too many souls lost and citizens bought off with free lunches, government jobs, moral corruption and planned dependency while the right refuses to even deal with the social questions that weakened our very fiber, allowing more and more to give flight to responsibility, dignity, and carrying their own load in this world.
The attacks on God and family have taken their toll.
The problem is not the liberal disease but the quack GOP doctor that keeps prescribing capitulation as medicine to stave off the fatal disease of progressiveism.

Don L on August 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM

The problem is not the liberal disease but the quack GOP doctor that keeps prescribing capitulation as medicine to stave off the fatal disease of progressiveism.

Don L on August 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM

Well said, as disheartening as the topic is.

Cylor on August 12, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Put me on team Rand Paul.

jhffmn on August 12, 2013 at 5:57 AM

This is sad. Jazz Shaw is confusing Peter King of NY with Steve King of Iowa.

Peter King OBVIOUSLY doesn’t belong in this group. He’s closer to Christie than to Cruz.

Makes it hard to take seriously anything Jazz writes here.

Very embarrassing.

bluegill on August 12, 2013 at 6:41 AM

Of some note on Sarah Palin.

It has to be known by all the people who run for office in Alaska that the law is that you have to pay the cost if sued.

So the question is why did she nor the Repubican Party not take out an Errors and Ommission policy.

Atty’s, Realtors, ect. do so.

Odd that, any one from Alaska know the answer to that?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 12, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Some day when the Liberty blue eagles are going from southern home to southern home rounding up weapons and dissenters you duma$ses will regret rolling over and letting fascist GE and its govt partnered media label you as a Red. They did it on purpose. Red is rebel.

Every time you so called conservative media types legitimize your label, Tim Russert eats a hot fudge sundae in hellven.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Tea party served purpose. Shut it down. Shut down red. Shut down yellow no treaders. Start Freedom Party. Claim blue. Claim liberty. Claim the eagle. FU to the ones on the left who we let define us or push us to self defeatism.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Tea party served purpose. Shut it down. Shut down red. Shut down yellow no treaders. Start Freedom Party. Claim blue. Claim liberty. Claim the eagle. FU to the ones on the left who we let define us or push us to self defeatism.
pc on August 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Why are you so wrapped up in the color and symbolism thing? I don’t think the colors have the same significance to everyone.

Also, the Tea Party needs to be made stronger, not shut down. Are you nuts? That’s where the passion is.

bluegill on August 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Tea party served purpose. Shut it down. Shut down red. Shut down yellow no treaders. Start Freedom Party. Claim blue. Claim liberty. Claim the eagle. FU to the ones on the left who we let define us or push us to self defeatism.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Hmmm… Things to ponder today.

Fallon on August 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Of some note on Sarah Palin.

It has to be known by all the people who run for office in Alaska that the law is that you have to pay the cost if sued.

So the question is why did she nor the Repubican Party not take out an Errors and Ommission policy.

Atty’s, Realtors, ect. do so.

Odd that, any one from Alaska know the answer to that?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 12, 2013 at 7:46 AM

My understanding is that an Errors and Ommission policy would have been paid for by the taxpayers, which would have given people just one more thing to gripe about, it may or may not have covered her mounting legal bills had she stayed in office, and it basically amounts to the same reason you don’t get flood insurance if you don’t live on a flood plain — you shouldn’t need it, and you can’t get it after the fact when it does flood. But I digress.

gryphon202 on August 12, 2013 at 9:33 AM

To Bluegill
Think.
Best regards

pc on August 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Fallon,

They took Blue. They took Liberty. They took the Eagle. They forced the scraps on us. GE/NBC did it before people were paying attn. We will die defending the red hill. Symbolism is the battle.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Actually its FU to the cro magnon right who is too stupid to see what us being done to them. I wont ally and die with dumbs**ts. Raise your game or lose a lot of us who refuse to follow your suicidal path. Don’t refer to me as red or yellow. It needs to stop NOW.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM

pc on August 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Have you thought about Decaf?

kingsjester on August 12, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Heh

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM

pc on August 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I hope the R party goes down into the abyss, like a non-stop spiral, exponentially. The sooner the better. Have you no shame, you harlots?

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2013 at 1:03 PM

kingsjester on August 12, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I didn’t understand a word of what pc said.

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I don’t, either. But, then again, we’re sober and over 21.

kingsjester on August 12, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Lol! ; ) Good point.

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 2:29 PM

I didn’t understand a word of what pc said.

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Symbol appropriation. In this instance, pc refers to the deliberate and misleading association of conservatism with ‘red’ states. It could be pointed out that our blue clad founders’ opponents were the redcoats and in more recent history communism’s concomitant has been crimson.

Even as ‘liberal’ as currently understood has little resemblance to the word as used in Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, so do the left seek to undermine ideas through redefinition. pc makes a valid point.

wolfsDad on August 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Pattosensei on August 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM

And I’m going to lay a little West Virginia on you now. Well, some West Virginia and everywhere else. All over really. Here goes. “When you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.”

Two things are possible. Either a) you don’t know what Palin said, or b) you struggle to comprehend the English language. I like to assume the best about people so I’m going guess it’s the former. Since you don’t know what she said, here’s the quote that lead to the whole embarrassing situation.

[Paul Revere] warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

The use of the word “by” (indicated in bold above) implies Revere is the one firing the warning shots and ringing the bells. No historian has ever supported that notion. It also lends credence to the idea that giving Palin the massive benefit of the doubt about warning the British is undeserved because she’s saying the shots and bells were Revere’s warning to them, not the bluff he said to the soldiers after he was captured.

It’s pretty clear that what Palin actually meant to say was something about “ringing the warning bell”, which is a well-understood figure of speech and fits much more cleanly with what actually happened. She basically had a slip of the tongue along the lines of Al Sharpton’s “resist we much” flub. But rather than admit that something she said came out wrong she doubled down on her mistake and tried to rewrite history, and it’s pretty clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense and an elementary level knowledge of history (present company included) that that is what she was up to. That is embarrassing.

alchemist19 on August 12, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Tea party served purpose. Shut it down. Shut down red. Shut down yellow no treaders. Start Freedom Party. Claim blue. Claim liberty. Claim the eagle. FU to the ones on the left who we let define us or push us to self defeatism.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

.
Why are you so wrapped up in the color and symbolism thing? I don’t think the colors have the same significance to everyone.

Also, the Tea Party needs to be made stronger, not shut down. Are you nuts? That’s where the passion is.

bluegill on August 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM
.

To bluegill
Think.
Best regards

pc on August 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM

.
I didn’t understand a word of what pc said.

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM
.

I don’t, either. But, then again, we’re sober and over 21.

kingsjester on August 12, 2013 at 1:23 PM

.
Symbol appropriation. In this instance, pc refers to the deliberate and misleading association of conservatism with ‘red’ states. It could be pointed out that our blue clad founders’ opponents were the redcoats and in more recent history communism’s concomitant has been crimson.

Even as ‘liberal’ as currently understood has little resemblance to the word as used in Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, so do the left seek to undermine ideas through redefinition. pc makes a valid point.

wolfsDad on August 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM

.
I don’t believe there is any confusion over who’s for Socialized Government vs who’s for Constitutional limited government, because our political enemies reciprocated the colors as to which color represents which side.

Shut down the Tea Party ? !

You have really got to explain that one.

(g a s p ) … but that means I agree with bluegill.

Damn … now I’m confused.

listens2glenn on August 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Shut down was the wrong term. Rebrand The Tea Party as The Freedom Party. It’s my idea to go on the offense to reclaim the traditional symbols of Freedom and Strength. The Freedom Party is Palin and Levin’s idea. That is the perfect oppty to do it right and take back the symbols as a part of the central theme of the party. No snakes, sorry. Eagles eat snakes. Cannons are okay. Yellow’s out. Blue is in.

Don’t fear rebranding. Democrats have rebranded 3 times during my life. Southern white and northern union coalition, anti-establishment liberals and now full bore leftists, which represent the worst of the first two in terms of tenacity, organization, creativity and a nasty mean streak. They never rest when it comes to staying current and fresh. Democrats successfully undermined the TeaParty because it was too easy to target provincially and because it was first. Let them try and mess with The Freedom Party.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 7:59 PM

The Republicans are nothing more than the protest wing of the Democrat Party. Weak protest at that.

pc on August 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I feel fairly certain this is the most comments one of Jazz’s posts has ever gotten.

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 10:14 PM

wolfsDad on August 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Ahhh.

Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 10:17 PM

I didn’t understand a word of what pc said.
Bmore on August 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I didn’t either at first, but I think apparent Palin supporter “PC” is mad that Republicans got assigned the color red in election night reporting (he prefers blue). He also doesn’t like the yellow “don’t tread on me” flag and prefers eagles to elephants and snakes. He says red is the color of “rebels” or radicals and the GOP should never have allowed that color assignment. Oh, and he wants to shut down the Tea Party so that we can start fresh on a party associated with the patriotic color blue and an eagle for a mascot.

bluegill on August 12, 2013 at 11:13 PM

And I’m going to lay a little West Virginia on you now. Well, some West Virginia and everywhere else. All over really. Here goes. “When you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.”

alchemist19 on August 12, 2013 at 6:03 PM

In WV, the hole is where most of the digging is done. You clearly have never been there or you would know. Anyhow, you should take your own advice.

I gave you two criteria, semantically and pragmatically. Let’s see how well you did.

Palin (again):

[Paul Revere] warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

You:

The use of the word “by” (indicated in bold above) implies Revere is the one firing the warning shots and ringing the bells.

You are half-right in your assessment of one possible meaning of Palin’s utterance. There is an implication that Revere did the ringing of the bells himself, but it is not he word “by” that gives it. The semantic entailment of “by” in this sentence is the “method” or “way of.” For example:

“Tokugawa started the siege by surrounding the castle.”

Did Tokugawa do the surrounding? No, obviously his men did.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that Paul Revere could (ability) have rung bells by himself coupled from the fact that it is combined via conjunction by an action that he did do: ride a horse.

Regardless, what you have is ambiguity at best. This ambiguity is somewhat resolved (though not wholly) through the verb phrase “send those warning shots and bells.” This clause implies that Revere did not shoot a gun or ring bells as the word “send” cannot entail either action.

It’s pretty clear that what Palin actually meant to say was something about “ringing the warning bell”, which is a well-understood figure of speech and fits much more cleanly with what actually happened.

There is no support for this claim within her statement. The possible sense of her utterance is that Paul Revere was responsible for the ringing bells and shots fired that served as a signal to the British that Americans would resist (pardon the paraphrase). The question remains as to whether she intended to say Revere personally rang bells or not.

She basically had a slip of the tongue along the lines of Al Sharpton’s “resist we much” flub.

Those two are completely different errors. “Resist we much” is grammatically wrong and semantically illogical. Palin’s statement is not clear enough in one small section of her complex utterance.

But rather than admit that something she said came out wrong she doubled down on her mistake and tried to rewrite history, and it’s pretty clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense and an elementary level knowledge of history (present company included) that that is what she was up to. That is embarrassing.

Her elementary knowledge of history seems to be in line with Dr. Robert Allison, chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston.

BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere’s message to the British in his warning was: You’re not going to take American arms – you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn’t exist then.

Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists’ arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that.

In the end, the only case you have is an instance of ambiguity in meaning due to sentence structure. As she was speaking off the cuff, you’ll pardon her for not being perfectly clear. Unless you want to claim that you’ve never made an ambiguous utterance.

What is beautiful about this entire debate with you is how you started the argument by accusing Palin of not knowing her history. When several posters provided links of historians supporting her basic point (minus an minor possible flaw) you then play semantics to form a gotcha. Then, you conclude your last point once again arguing that she was historically wrong after offering no proof whatsoever of that claim.

The best you can come away with from this exchange is the satisfaction that you have caught Palin using unclear language. Even if we cede the implication that Revere rang the bells personally to you, you have only managed to show a small flaw in a correct historical narrative. Now take your consolation prize and go.

Pattosensei on August 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM

You are half-right in your assessment of one possible meaning of Palin’s utterance. There is an implication that Revere did the ringing of the bells himself, but it is not he word “by” that gives it. The semantic entailment of “by” in this sentence is the “method” or “way of.” For example:

“Tokugawa started the siege by surrounding the castle.”

Did Tokugawa do the surrounding? No, obviously his men did.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that Paul Revere could (ability) have rung bells by himself coupled from the fact that it is combined via conjunction by an action that he did do: ride a horse.

Regardless, what you have is ambiguity at best. This ambiguity is somewhat resolved (though not wholly) through the verb phrase “send those warning shots and bells.” This clause implies that Revere did not shoot a gun or ring bells as the word “send” cannot entail either action.

I will agree that Palin’s statement was completely wrong at worst (with a plain understanding of the words she use) and ambiguous at best. FYI, a person can indeed send (off or up or whatever) a warning shot while riding a horse so it’s not necessarily linked to the bells. She could have through Revere had a small bell he carried with him for all we know.

There is no support for this claim within her statement. The possible sense of her utterance is that Paul Revere was responsible for the ringing bells and shots fired that served as a signal to the British that Americans would resist (pardon the paraphrase). The question remains as to whether she intended to say Revere personally rang bells or not.

I was doing my best to be as charitable as possible with the actual words she used. It’s possible to, with a MASSIVE benefit of the doubt, assume that but her wording is incredibly awkward if that’s what she was trying to say, so much so that it makes more sense that that wasn’t what she was trying to say.

Those two are completely different errors. “Resist we much” is grammatically wrong and semantically illogical. Palin’s statement is not clear enough in one small section of her complex utterance.

Palin’s statement wasn’t clear at all and needn’t have been complex. And it’s really only complex if you’re trying to look for a way to make it true and not nonsensical.

Her elementary knowledge of history seems to be in line with Dr. Robert Allison, chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston.

And from the sound of the rest of the interview there are a lot more historians who disagree with his take as being entirely too charitable.

In the end, the only case you have is an instance of ambiguity in meaning due to sentence structure. As she was speaking off the cuff, you’ll pardon her for not being perfectly clear. Unless you want to claim that you’ve never made an ambiguous utterance.

What is beautiful about this entire debate with you is how you started the argument by accusing Palin of not knowing her history. When several posters provided links of historians supporting her basic point (minus an minor possible flaw) you then play semantics to form a gotcha. Then, you conclude your last point once again arguing that she was historically wrong after offering no proof whatsoever of that claim.

The best you can come away with from this exchange is the satisfaction that you have caught Palin using unclear language. Even if we cede the implication that Revere rang the bells personally to you, you have only managed to show a small flaw in a correct historical narrative. Now take your consolation prize and go.

Pattosensei on August 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM

And now perhaps I’ve been too charitable when I made my assumption in the last post that the issue was you were unfamiliar with Palin’s actual quote. Hmmmm.

Of course I’ve made off-the-cuff remarks that didn’t come out clearly. Who hasn’t? Palin had the chance with Chris Wallace a couple days later to say that that was the case. She could have said she was in the middle of the long car trip with the kids, she’s spent the day out sightseeing and running around town, she was tired, she had a question shouted at her, she tried to answer it quickly and what she said didn’t come out exactly right. I think anyone in the country with kids could relate to that. But that’s not what she did.

Where this entire debate actually started was with someone asking anybody to post something embarrassing that Palin actually said and I posted:

Paul Revere firing those warning shots and ringing those bells to warn the British they weren’t going to be taking away our arms.

alchemist19 on August 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM

That still stands. Remember what I said a bit ago about how I might have been wrong about you being unfamiliar with the Palin quote being the root of the problem? Yeah, little more evidence for that right now.

What you appear to be asking me to do is to prove a negative, that being that Palin’s statement is categorically false. Proving negatives is a difficult task, though I have pointed to an utter lack of evidence to support what she said without a very charitable reinterpretation of her words. This along with her stubborn insistence that she’s right about the whole mess, and her refusal to acknowledge something plainly obvious which would have put the whole thing to bed, and that even you yourself have recognized: that what she said as she said it didn’t make a lot of sense.

alchemist19 on August 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

alchemist19 on August 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Thank you for posting that. I am not going to do a full response as it would take far too long for me to go through all of your errors, misrepresentations and general inability to address any points I made accurately. Here are a few highlights:

1) You do not understand linguistics.

2) You are poor at reading comprehension.

3) You apparently do not understand the term “prove a negative.” (FYI, you can prove that a statement is false.)

4) You have several contradictions within your post

It is clear that you were unable to understand my argument and did not read the link I provided from NPR (or were unable to understand it as well).

Anyhow I certainly had fun. Until we clash again on another thread…

Pattosensei on August 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Pattosensei on August 13, 2013 at 11:22 PM

I would say that it’s been fun and that you make good, well-thought-out points that are convincingly supported by the evidence but then that would make my take on history as garbled and embarrassing as Sarah Palin’s. Good luck to you next time out though. ;-D

alchemist19 on August 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Cruz/West 2016

Palin/Cruz

Cruz/Palin

Palin/West

Or,just mix and match,….2016!!

canopfor on August 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Wellll, looky there, I didn’t have to wade through 8 pages to get the thread winner..

/hat tip Canopfor

44Magnum on August 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Cruz/West 2016

Palin/Cruz

Cruz/Palin

Palin/West

Or,just mix and match,….2016!!

canopfor on August 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM

.
Wellll, looky there, I didn’t have to wade through 8 pages to get the thread winner..

/hat tip Canopfor

44Magnum on August 14, 2013 at 9:45 PM

.
Wait a minute . . . . . . . . why isn’t Scott Walker included in that?

listens2glenn on August 15, 2013 at 7:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8