Go to School or Join the Circus? Hmmmm...

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

Comments

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

Please run Palin in '12, Republicans. Please.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Happily!

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

Go for it. She'll lose it for you again and we'll get to laugh at her (and you) for the whole campaign.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

"Again"?

She'd have to lose it for us at least once for there to be an "again".

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

Oh, so who lost it for you, then?

[fleaplus.livejournal.com]

Bush

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

But Palin is practically Bush in drag.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

That's awesome man, keep up the good work!

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

*pats you on the head*

[desidono.livejournal.com]

Awww, thanks!

I sincerely hope your candidate sweeps the primaries!

[jessica-leah.livejournal.com]

I heard she's in all sorts of talks for a multimillion dollar book deal. Shocker, I know.

[kvschwartz.livejournal.com]

Is it to be entitled, "The Things You Don't Know I Don't Know Could Fill a Book"?

Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Palin in 2012 baybee!

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[desidono.livejournal.com]

YES! Palin in 2012! RUN RUN RUN SARAH!

Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

Want to bet?

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Certainly.

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[desidono.livejournal.com]

Let's start with a definition of "change" then. Why don't you put a value to it, and then we can decide on a suitable wager.

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

OK, seriously, I'd love to hear why you think Palin would be a good President.

During the election I heard a lot of supporters say things like "She's a wife and mother. She's just like me. I think she understands me and what I'm going through." That's great and all, but that's about 387th on the list of things a President needs. So, please don't make that part of your case.

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

She's for limited government, lower taxes, isn't afraid to take on corruption in political parties (including her own) or corporations.

She is for Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court and federalism (balance of power tilting to the states) as a governing principle.

She's not afraid to defend the United States and knows that people like Putin are a threat.

Also, I think you confused the identity politics with Obama supporters.

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

First of all, there are identity politics on both sides. I'm just telling you what I heard a lot from Palin supporters.

Most of what you said are her positions on issues. I was getting some work done on my house and I got into a conversation with one of the carpenters about why he was going to vote for McCain. He was for limited gov't, lower taxes, strict adherence to the constitution, states rights, etc. So, basically, he had opinions just like Sarah Palin. However, that does not mean he'd be a good President.

My problem with Palin was not so much her position on the issues, it was her demonstrable lack of command of the issues. Let's take the Supreme Court for example. Based on her interviews she knows little to nothing about constitutional law. So how would she be able to tell a good judge from a bad judge? She couldn't go more than an inch deep in her conversation with Katie Couric, so how could she hold any sway or influence when she's talking about this with her advisors.

One of her big things in the campaign was "we're going to clean up the corruption in Washington and Wall Street." What I never saw anyone ask her was "What exactly is the corruption in Washington and Wall Street, and what can you do to clean it up?" I guarantee she would have come back with some kind of Miss Teen South Carolina response that "all comes back to job creation" leaving the whole world saying "wha?"

She may be different in 4 years. I'm eager to see how she grows...if she grows. But I think if she wants to be President she's going to need to have more than Governor of Alaska on her resume (a one-trick-pony state with huge budget surplusses because they get 80% of their tax revenue from oil producers) In that job she will not have to deal with anywhere near the kinds of challenges that would face a president.

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[fleaplus.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think it depends a lot on how things unfold before then. Palin needs to retake her image, and if she fails in that there's no way she can run in 2012. Also, depending on how the political scenarios are, it's possible that someone like Jindal or Pawlenty may be a better bet.

Re: Because "change" is all you'll have left by then

[fleaplus.livejournal.com]

Also, my suspicion is that the falling price of oil will likely cause budget problems for Alaska, which will damage her image.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

Lot of good stories about where the Republican party is headed - personally, I think this is the defeat of the centrists and the republicans are going to lurch even more to the hard right social conservative, especially since the moderate republican in Congress is basically an extinct species now.

Which is great for the dems, because it means that they'll keep losing.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I eagerly await your evidence in support of the claim that she is "bat-shit insane".

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

I think it's the winking. All that face-contorting winking. But that could be a mini-stroke or a nervous tic. It doesn't necessarily mean she's bat-shit insane.

Or perhaps it's the fact she believes she's got the experience, intellect, and instincts to be an effective POTUS. You gotta be crazy to believe that.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

I want her to win SO BAD. This is largely what happened to the Republican party in Washington in the 90s - they decided that the problem was that they weren't conservative enough (which is what I keep hearing now from the professional republican quarters) and so they nominated a female social conservative named Ellen Craswell for governor. She got something like 40% of the vote. The following election they nominated a radio shock jock, who also did horribly (worse than Craswell, but the state had become more liberal by this point).

And that's why in 2004 and 2008, they nominated Dino Rossi as a stealth conservative.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

After the Conservative Party lost the 1997 general election in the UK they decided that they hadn't been right-wing enough. So they elected a series of increasingly right-wing ideologues and were functionally unelectable until David Cameron tried to take the 'middle-ground' from the ruling Labour Party. Having lost three elections in a row the Consevatives are now leading in the polls.

In the previous cycle (the 80's) the Labour party had decided they weren't left-wing enough, elected leaders from the extreme edge of the party, and became unelectable for almost 18 years.

Now who knows if the Republicans can learn from recent political history? From the looks of it, probably not.

Democrats want Palin to be the candidate in 2012. I wonder why?