jump to last post 1-50 of 66 discussions (315 posts)

Is Sarah Palin the next George Bush?

  1. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    With all the excitement generated by Sarah Palins new book "Going Rogue" and what some say is an obvious run at the White House, could she be the answer the Rebublican party is looking for?

    1. Lisa HW profile image82
      Lisa HWposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The mindless dribble that came from George Bush is what inspired so many to vote for him.  There seems to be a similar phenomena with this latest hoopla over Palin. She says all the correct rhetoric with no specifics and it seems to attract more attention from the press.  The possibility that we could be duped again does loom over us.

        1. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So, we were 'duped' when we elected Bush but not when we elected The Obama?

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Too soon to tell with Obama but Bush has proven himself over eight long years.

            1. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Still too soon, eh?

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image84
      Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think so.  Personally, she was the only candidate that I liked during the elections.  So far O'bama has been a joke in the white house, as he's only made things worse.  Plus, it seems like there really aren't many republicans that are strong enough to take back the white house.  therefore, i would love to see her run as president.  however, with the media being what it is, i have a feeling they'll just make her out to be a joke again like they did during the last election.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image92
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        hmm, we all have opinions, but, 'don't cha think' she has made her own circus??  hmm

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
          Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          what circus are you reffering to?

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have to ask you what it was that made you think she was the right person for the job?  Her executive experience? Her grasp on the issues?  Or was it her charisma?

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
          Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          how about the fact, that she's done such a great job running the state of alaska during her term, and building a fruitful economy there.

          what about barrack obama?  what has he done since he took office?  whine and complain about holding the olympics in chicago?  petitioning for a playoff in college football?  things by the way, that do little to NOTHING to help the economy.  Tripled the national defecit, and is forcing a health care law that could ruin the united states.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            But she does come with a lot of controversy and finger pointing.  The baggage is fairly heavey and will be exposed on a national arena if she makes a run at the White House.  Here is an excerpt from the Huffington Post of some of the controversy.

            When it comes to taking responsibility for her failures, Sarah Palin is completely unaccountable. Her finger is always pointed at the most convenient scapegoat. Last fall, I said she was George W. Bush with lipstick; nothing is ever her fault. With her resignation, she has set a new bar for blame.

            A 10 Month Accounting of Blame…

            Troopergate was her brother-in-law’s fault.

            Walt Monegan was a rogue commissioner.

            Neglecting a vetting of Palin’s appointed replacement of Commissioner Monegan wasn’t her fault, she didn’t know Chuck Kopp had a sexual harassment charge. His 14 day employment was rewarded with a $10,000 severance package.

            Her public press conference, pro-Pebble Mine stance during a contentious election was the fault of a “Governor’s hat” wardrobe malfunction and possibly Tim Griffin.

            The legislative investigation wasn’t her doing. It was a “Democratic driven, partisan witch hunt” voted on by 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats after Sarah Palin challenged them with Bush-like bravado “Bring it on!”

            When her church was burned, Palin blamed it on the attention she was receiving from people who didn’t like her.

            The Branchflower Report’s “guilty of abuse of power” findings weren’t her fault; she filed her own ethics complaint and would release those favorable findings the day before the election.

            When an Anchorage based right wing radio host disagreed with her policies, in an email she blamed it on, “…some evil stuff going on with him.”

            Her criticisms when her witch hunting, governor-anointing pastor, Pastor Muthee, was exposed, were the fault of people who hate Jesus.

            Her failed interviews were Katie Couric’s and Charlie Gibson’s fault. She called them “Gotcha questions.”

            The interview complete with compliments about the porno “Nailin’ Pailin‘” with “Sarkozy” poser shock jocks was the fault of McCain Campaign staffers.

            Her exorbitant wardrobe was the RNC’s fault.

            Her charging the state per diem to sleep in her own bed and flying her family around the country at state expense were nothing more than petty ethics complaints from whiny constituents.

            Her daughter’s problems are Levi’s fault.

            Her VP political loss was John McCain’s fault.

            Her image problems are Tina Fey’s fault.

            Turkeygate was the cameraman’s fault.

            Her policy on aerial wolf hunting was Ashley Judd’s and other Outsiders’ fault. Palin’s “faith based policy” on gassing wolf pups in their den must have been the fault of wolves gone wild.

            Alaskans damn near starved in Western Alaska last winter because they didn’t have enough cookies or Jesus.

            The resignation of Attorney General Talis Colberg had nothing to do with the advice he gave Todd Palin and aides to ignore subpoenas. She blamed it on the “harsh political environment”created by lawmakers.

            Palin thought Ted Stevens should “step aside” when convicted last fall. When Eric Holder overturned Steven’s conviction, Palin thought Begich should resign.

            When 6 million gallons of stored oil sat at the base of an erupting Mt. Redoubt, it was Homeland Security’s issue, not her fault.

            The empty Juneau Senate seat wasn’t on her; it was the Senate Democrats’ fault.

            When Palin blew off a meeting with lawmakers in Juneau to have a press conference with Wayne Anthony Ross, the legislative leadership called a heated press conference of their own. Palin blamed them for not having the meeting “telephonically”…then it got messy.

            Her failed appointment of a “if you can’t rape your wife, who can you rape?” secessionist, gun toting attorney general, Wayne Anthony Ross, was the fault of the Alaska bloggers.

            The failure of Palin’s bills last session were the fault of partisan legislators.

            In March, the governor said she wasn’t “rejecting” the stimulus money, she just wasn’t “accepting” it. It was Obama’s fault for the national debt.

            The inability to follow through with multiple speaking engagements had nothing to do with Palin’s commitment phobia,. It was a misunderstanding with scheduling.

            When a legislative aid made copies of an article Palin didn’t like, she went to his office and blamed him for letting his boss know she wouldn’t be in town for the last days of the session. Really.

            After making a speech, Palin was accused of lifting words from Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley in 2005. Palin’s attorney said it wasn’t her fault, she said Newt’s name twice.

            The ethics complaints against the governor were “unscrupulous” and Obama driven.

            No one believes the governor’s “word salad” as an explanation for her resignation, but that’s the fault of an Alaskan blogger.

            She blamed the ethics complaints for costing Alaska “millions of dollars”, except they weren’t. It was less than $300,000 and of that, $187,000 was from her own politically motivated complaint, filed on herself to distract an interested public from the damning Branchflower report.

            Sarah didn’t want the travel costs of a “lame duck governor” to be billed to the state, and blamed her resignation on it in part…but she flew, on state dime, the equivalent of Miami to LA in the seven days since resigning.

            She has half a million dollars in personal legal bills and must resign, blaming ethics complainers for her expense…but those legal bills will be paid in full, courtesy of her massive legal defense fund.

            Levi says she’s out for the money…but his opinion doesn’t matter. She blames his opinion on having a movie deal in the works.

            It’s Rahm Emmanuel and President Obama’s fault that Sarah Palin has constituents who think she sucks at her job.

            Under the Palin Administration, the Department of Health & Social Services has been so poorly managed the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until they get their act together. So, I guess that would be the fault of people who are both poor and sick and old.

            The Constitutional crisis created by Palin’s resignation isn’t her fault, the legislature should have seen this coming years ago.

            It’s not Sarah’s fault she’s married to a man who was part of a secessionist political party, the Alaska Independence Party. No, it’s the fault of “gotcha” voter registration.

            No, Governor Palin, your losses are your fault.

            Sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all full here.

            Shannyn Moore
            Huffington Post

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
              Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              dude, i understand completely what your saying.  However, EVERY president has always been under harsh scrutiny.  Even dating back to George Washington, when an old comic strip displays a picture of him riding a donkey.  with the line of the cartoon saying, "an ass rides to washington." anyway, to get back to my point, you say that all palin does is blame others, then what about barrack o'bama?

              all he's done is blame every issue that he's dealt with on george w. bush.  not taking any responsibility for tripling the national deficit at all.  done nothing to improve the war on terror or in iraq  except blame bush.  when exactly is obama going to change things for the better?

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I understand what you are saying and with a public life comes the scrutiny good and bad depending on who is reporting it.  I guess the problem I have with backing Palin relies more on how she has handeled the scrutiny.  She quit her job as Governor when the going got tough. What would she do with the Presidency if she found herself on the hotseat again? She has established an unacceptable precedent with this one action.

                1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
                  Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  i agree with you to an extent.  Your right she did leave the governor's office, so that would hurt her chances tremendously as it did when Ross Perot dropped out then got back into an election. 

                  however, as far as her blaming other people are concerned, ALL politicians do that.  When have you ever heard a president publicly admit they messed up unless they're forced to like Nixon and Clinton.  my point is, you can't say she goes around pointing fingers at others, when we even have a current president whom likes to do the exact same thing by blaming everything on bush.

            2. 0
              Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, so.  You know all that, so why are you saying you are (what?) "sinking all my domains" in regard to Palin?

              BTW, Shannyn Moore is not a Huff Post journalist.  She was the blogger in Anchorage who first broke much of the information in Alaska when Palin was first tapped (pretty much unvetted, obviously) for the Vice spot.  A politician can survive a scandal or two--but not all that.  It just says over and over again she's incompetent.

              Moore became relatively famous (ha, as writers go) by virtue of her WORK and what it meant on a national stage.  And amazing, that.  Palin should maybe follow suit and I'd bet many would stop sneering at her.

    3. Friendlyword profile image60
      Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Considering George Bush was our President and Sarah Palin would never be; the question is who would could run against Barack Obama. Sarah Palin's to busy paling around with the news media. She quit her job as Governor to pal around with the Media. She's a quitter that would not make it though a Presidential run.

      1. pylos26 profile image78
        pylos26posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Palin & Bush...similar I.Q.s...both incompetant.

        1. livelonger profile image89
          livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Both treasured by the neocons (esp Bill Kristol) for mindlessly doing their bidding.

    4. drej2522 profile image87
      drej2522posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      To heck with all Republicans and Democrats!

      Libertarians baby!!! All the way....

    5. TimTurner profile image80
      TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      She lost by 4 percentage points to Obama in a mock election last month.  That was with over 2,000 people "voting."

      With her book approaching 800,000 copies its first week, I think the Republican's found their front-runner!

    6. Presigo profile image60
      Presigoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I dont think so, she has brought a lot of energy and life to the republican party. I do admire her strength of character as displayed by the attacks on her, that being said I do not view her as presidential material

    7. 0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      if you're asking is she qualified in any way, shape or form to be President of the United States, um, no.

    8. fishskinfreak2008 profile image30
      fishskinfreak2008posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      SHE ISN'T EVEN SMART ENOUGH FOR THAT. AND WE THOUGHT GEORGE BUSH WAS INEPT.

    9. itcoll profile image60
      itcollposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      no.that would never happen.

  2. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    She could be the warning the libs are choosing to ignore, and that's just as well.

  3. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    But as we have learned more about George Bushs' puppet presidency through Dick Chenney is it a figurehead that she will assume and if so who would be the puppet master?

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      George Bush was president. The 'puppet' stuff is just silly and libs should feel confident enough to let it go by now.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And if conservatives had any self respect, which of course they don't, they would appologise for the total cluster f*** that was the W. years.

        1. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That kind of comment is completely unrelated to what was quoted and is so blatantly and reflexively partisan as to be essentially meaningless, don't you think?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ahhhhhhhh, there we have it.

            So very Sarah Palin

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well to sumarily dismiss it as being silly would be a tact that could be applied to many conservatives.  As I am neither I won't hold it against you.  Without getting into details about how Chenney ran the White House it was shown several times in many ways that George Bush got his opinions and orders from both Chenney and Carl Rove as to how things should be done.  Several times both Chenney and Rove got caught acting out rather then through Bush.

        But back to topic is Michael Steel capable of putting the Republican political machine behing Palin and who would be a strong running mate that she could rely on as Bush did?

        1. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's fine that you are fervently biased in your political views, but that sort of nonsense is pointless. It really is.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I am sorry if you see it that way.  Maybe a few years from now there will be a clearing of the minds that will be able to be objectively looked at with regards to the Bush presidency and what went wrong.  Until then I guess we will have to operate with the spin and be mindful of its' relationship to the truth of the conversation.  I could say that your political bias gets in the way but I prefer to deal with the topic and not the individual.

            Who then could Sarah Palin take on as an advisor to help her further her credible run for the White House?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              If Newt Gingrich gets behind her in any substantial way.  She could maybe win a couple of Western states.

              1. 0
                Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It will never happen.  The girl is definitely not setting herself up for a run for the presidency.  Much too hard.  Making money is easier and more fulfilling.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know about that.  She was talked into a lot of other stuff when she was with McCain. She is beginning to get an Oprah like following and there is a whole machine associated with that phenomena.

                  1. 0
                    Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    If she runs, (and the democrats are hoping she does...and we especially like their new 'inclusiveness doctrine'), there will be a rallying of voters 'against' her candidacy like we have never witnessed before.  (Oh, yeah, except for McCain's last run.)

                    She is an extremely polarizing figure.  She will never win just due to the womens' vote alone.

                    And we are hopefully past Rovian 'tactics,' or at least being fooled by it.  That's why it is important NOT to dismiss the Bush years so summarily so that we may look at his presidency 'clearly.'

              2. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That might work if they could throw off the negative press Gingrich got in his last bid.  But is he capable of the politcal savy such as a Carl Rove?

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    She would be a dream candidate........


    For the Democrats

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/books/blog/sarah%20palin%20going-rouge.jpg

      1. John Kounoupis profile image59
        John Kounoupisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Perfect.

  5. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    But wouldn't you agree once the same political machine that got behind George Bush with dyed in the wool party ideas might be able to get her elected regardless of her qualifications?  Mind you Bush bankrupted every business he was involved with.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No.  George Bush had support from the middle, which of course Ms. Palin has abandoned.  George also needed help from the Supreme court to defeat a VP who had been part of a scandel-ridden administration.

      Obama v Palin would be the first ever shut out in a modern presidential election. Alaska wouldn't even vote for her.

      1. Himitsu Shugisha profile image77
        Himitsu Shugishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I couldn't have said it better myself. You hit every point!!

    2. 0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He made a mint for the investors of the Texas Rangers, It only takes one success to be a Millionaire! How many companies has Obama made successful? Thats right, he had never. done anything before he Bankrupted the USA

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe you are right Texas but he did trade Sammy Sosa without any appreciable gain.  Maybe I was a bit presumptuous.  Perhaps we should go more on his record as president.  Here are a few of the highlights.

        George Bush accomplishments as president:
        Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

        Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

        Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

        First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

        First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

        After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

        Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

        In his first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job. Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

        Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

        Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

        Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

        Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

        Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

        Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

        Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

        Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest him (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

        Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

        His presidency was the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

        Members of his cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice had an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

        First president in US history to have 30 state simultaneously go bankrupt.

        Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

        First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.

        Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

        Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

        Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

        Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

        Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

        All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

        His biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

        Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

        First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

        First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force One)

        Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

        With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

        First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

        Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

        Failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'. Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months he had no leads and zero suspects.

        In the 18 months following the 911 attacks he had successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States. Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

        In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

        I really don't know if Sarah Palin can adequately fill those shoes.  Maybe we should give her a try.

  6. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    As I've said many times, democrats ignore (or arrogantly dismiss) Palin's popularity at their own peril.


    Anyone remember John Kerry windsurfing?

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      She is quite popular amongst the rubes.  10% won't win many elections.  You have to at least get close for the supreme court to hand it to you.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There it is. Don't say I didn't warn ya...

        1. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sarah Palin.  wink

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ramen

        2. 0
          Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Might as well go on record and thank Tksensei for warning ya.  (Thanks, TK!)  Yup, after reading Going Rogue, I'm firmly on the Sarah Palin bandwagon (like there was really any doubt prior to that). 

          Now, the only question remaining:  Am I the Ghost of Election Past...Election Present...or Election Future? 

          Only the ballot box knows....big_smile

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What a cluster flop he was. His platform was not one of change but of he will do whatever Bush was doing only better.  Not a good stance to stage a campaign against an incumbent. I loved it when Edwards said that "we just want to tell the people what they want to hear"  Great statement to win votes.

      Popularity is what could make the difference in her bid I agree but I think she will have to do a litle more to send it over the top.

      1. K Partin profile image61
        K Partinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        A little more?? Allot more more you mean...she has a long way to go before she is seasoned enough. These politicians today would
        chew her up, and spit her out her kitchen window right over to Russia!! smile She has enough family problems to worry about for now, don't even think of running for any office. just keep racking in that money from your book!

  7. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    http://www.2010-super-bowl.com/Miami_Dolphins/bill-belichick.jpg

    Palin's new campaign manager. 

    This time, he'll punt.

  8. 61
    songsterposted 7 years ago

    i wouldnt mind getting behind her in a substantial way.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is that based on her popularity and its ability to get her elected or is it based on her ability to govern?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think it is based on a different set of criteria altogether.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol I finally got this. lol

  9. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

    this is rather comical. a friend sent it.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/peterevanso … ncelj-qAak

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol I didn't know he had such a peaceful nature to him lol

  10. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Seriously?
    I can just see Sarah Pailin in the white house speaking to European leaders in tongues.
    The thought that anyone voted for this religious loony is scary enough!

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am just trying to understand the attraction and how it outweighs the qualifications.  Remember this country voted George Bush in twice even after all the bungeling.

      1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
        Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        i do agree that bush was an huge idiot, and that he never should've gotten re elected.  however, if you look at who was running against him during the elections of that time, was john kerry.  a man that has been known to constantly change his mind ALL THE TIME.  I think if the democrats had a stronger candidate like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or Barrack O'Bama, to run against bush during his re election campaign, then he never would've gotten elected for another term.  however, the democrats just had a weak candidate in kerry, so you can't blame bush for that.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree to a certain extent but America did overlook a lot at the time. The British press headlines on the day after Bush was re-elected said "How can 300 million people be so dumb?"  Kerry was a tool of the Democratic party and stood for nothing.  I think more people felt we should not change the Executive Office while a war was being conducted.

          1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
            Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            or kerry was just a weak leader to begin with.  heck, he was a traitor during the vietnam war, and he was made famous by his own infamous line, "i was for the war, BEFORE i voted against it."  in other words, he's a weak leader.  if i had to choose between a weak indecisive leader or a moron. i'd choose the lesser of the two evils and pick bush.  at least he'll stick to his guns where as kerry is too wishy washy

    2. 0
      Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      She does believe in God, Earnest, but I've seen nothing to indicate she would make any attempt to push her faith on anyone else.  As to being "loony", you base that on...what?

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well the list posted by the OP gives some indication, but a tongue talkin religious fanatic? That is a loony. smile

  11. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Even in Australia we have seen all of these things in the press, and anyone who could vote for a religious fanatic like her and seriously consider her as a candidate for presidency is not at all well in my view. smile
    The rest of the world would never wear it either.

  12. MikeNV profile image76
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    All Presidents are puppets to the Private Bankers. They are bought and sold and told what to do through lobbyists.  Follow the money trail.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well Stated! I agree.

  13. Stevennix2001 profile image84
    Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago

    bump

  14. 0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    I  think they broke the mould with W. I would not worry 'bout it none. The 'Messiah' will win again, then Dec. 21 comes. boom!

  15. bukan profile image61
    bukanposted 7 years ago

    No Comments please Let wish the best! I am an Indian

  16. Dolores Monet profile image91
    Dolores Monetposted 7 years ago

    I think Obama made a mistake politically by placing all those bandaids on the economy. If the whole think really goes to hell in spring or next summer, all will be blamed on Obama and he will be rendered powerless. I think that the Republicans lost the election on purpose because they'd made such a mess of things and figured, let the Democrats deal with it.

  17. Dolores Monet profile image91
    Dolores Monetposted 7 years ago

    Obama has spent the last 10 months trying to fix what took 8 years to foul up. Just think...if John McCain spoke during the debates how he spoke when he conceded the election - where he presented himself as a thoughtful, warm-hearted, generous, intelligent man instead of the snarling fiend he presented at the debates - he just may have won the election.

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It seems he spoke pretty well since the moment he was elected, The Obama started saying some of the exact same things his campaign mocked McCain for during the race.

      1. roughtide profile image60
        roughtideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What is the deal with all of this "The Obama" and "The Messiah"? Where is all of this anger and ideas really coming from??

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know. Ask TK.

        2. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, the children are being indoctrinated into worshipping Dear Leader at school. I just don't want to be thrown in the gulag when they are old enough to begin the purges and reeducation camps.

  18. AdsenseStrategies profile image73
    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago

    I saw a documentary the other night on the fight to get legislation through congress (and the senate) that would prevent credit card companies from arbitrarily raising interest rates and bankrupting people overnight. Now, I am no fan of credit cards, or of running up credit, but I am thankful at least to live in Canada, where banking is regulated properly, yet where we nevertheless have a robust capitalist economy and a right-wing, almost-neo-con government in power... but a government that still would not go so far as to deregulate the credit card industry -- even its own supporters wouldn't stand for it.

    In other words, I can't imagine the common person in the US being against such legislation -- yet the Republicans managed to whittle down this bill so that the credit card companies can still get away with abusive practice.

    I don't understand: why would anyone vote Republican? Doesn't the Republican Party understand it is supposed to represent its supporters, and not credit card companies and other corporations? I don't get it... at all...

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      .................... roll

  19. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Just how much of a f/wit do you need to be to vote for a fundamental religionist for president?

    Anyone confronted with this loony tune or her actions during the election as stated by the OP who voted for her is being partisan, or are fundies.
    The woman talks in tongues fer gords sake!
    Does America want to be laughed off the world stage?

    Americans do not look for candidates, they just vote on partisan lines as they always have. That is why America has had so many moronic candidates.

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Where are you from?

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image84
      Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      yeah, but this goes back to once again.  look who was running against bush at the times he was elected.  the first guy gore is a huge hypocrite as he tries to preach about the environment, when in reality he uses more power and resources than anyone else in the world.  plus, its proven his whole global warming is a hoax.

      then in the second election, you had john kerry, who you might know from his famous line, "i voted for the war, before i voted against it."  a man that's a traitor during the vietnam war, and has a record in the senate of constantly changing his mind in favor of the popular vote.  never taking a firm stance on anything. 


      you can't blame the public for that. the democrats didn't have a strong candidate to beat bush.  thats why he go re elected, and it had nothing to do with how dumb are society was at the time.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You did not address the issue of her being a nutty fundy.
        This is exactly what I mean. You avoid the major problem, then explain that the candidates were no good. Who voted for the candidates?

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
          Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          yeah, so you'd rather have a con man like Al Gore or a giant Hypocrite like John Kerry as president?

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            How did you arrive at that conclusion? smile
            You still avoided the fundy bit! smile

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image84
              Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              yet, you fail to understand what im saying.  Those two men were the ones that ran against bush during both his election campaigns.  therefore, if he didn't get elected to begin with, you would've had to put up with either one of them.  hence, why i asked would you rather have either gore or kerry over bush?

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I would prefer Donald Duck to Bush! smile

                1. Stan K profile image59
                  Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I have to agree with that! smile

  20. Stan K profile image59
    Stan Kposted 7 years ago

    George Bush alienated economic conservatives by being the biggest spender (percentage of Federal spending increases) in this history of the Presidency. 

    He alienated civil libertarians by attacking civil liberties with the Patriot Act (also typically conservatives). 

    He alienated social liberals (who might consider themselves economic conservatives) with a policy that represented bigotry by attacking the civil liberties of Gay citizens. 

    But....

    At least he had an understanding of his own philosophy.  Palin doesn't have any real understanding of politics, history, global history, or economics - nor is she interested in learning more (see excerpts of her book in my Hub, "Sara Palin - Showing a Real Commitment to Foreign Policy Ignorance"). 

    Sara Palin knows how to rehearse lines and read a teleprompter.  She knows how to hire a ghost writer to get a book published.  The fact that she accepted McCain's invitation to run for the Vice Presidency, or that she would consider running again, demonstrates her blatant disrespect for the very country that she is attempting to represent.  She of all people knows the depth of her knowledge of world history, economics, and foreign relations and she makes no pretense about her lack of knowledge in her book.  She claims that motherhood is a better qualification than experience with foreign policy or the academic study of economics. 

    She offers no real voice to a regenerate a real conservative movement because she offers no credibility.  If the Republican Party runs her, she will be exposed even more as someone who needs far more knowledge (intellectual curiosity would help) so that she can develop a real economic and political philosophy beyond "going to church and being a mom." 

    I love moms and church is fine too, but the fact that she's a parent who goes to church does not qualify her to be fit to represent the U.S. as a leader of the free world.  Conservatives need a real movement by a person who can articulate a conservative message of fiscal responsibility and using tax break incentives to address problems rather than big government.  They have to go back to their roots - not cater only to the religious right but to the economic conservatives who voted for Barack Obama because George Bush was the worst deficit spender in history.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, thank God!


      smile

    2. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hmmmmm...who does that remind you of?

  21. Stan K profile image59
    Stan Kposted 7 years ago

    It reminds of Sara Palin.  At least Bush, Obama, McCain, and Gore had an education that enabled them to develop a philosophy and in the case of Gore and McCain, attempt to apply their political philosophies on an international stage with Senatorial experience.  Obama, like him or not, has a first class education and graduated from Harvard where they do study complex concepts of economics, law, and history. 

    I don't want to sound like I'm bashing women here.  There are far more qualified women candidates than Palin that the Republicans could field for a Presidential bid. 

    Bottom line - the qualifications are transparent and if you feel she is qualified for the highest offices in the land, you need to have your head examined.

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Please. Some of the stupidest people I've ever met were graduates of Harvard. The fact that the 'elitists' (wannabe elites who absolutely don't get it) still don't realize why Palin maintains such a following is one of the biggest threats to the democrats next year and two years after that. Fine by me, but you'd think there would be at least a few over there in left field who could put ego aside long enough to see the train coming down the tracks at them.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        TK I think you make a good point.  How have any facts gotten in the way of any of the past elections for the last twenty years.  Bush senior had a very close relationship with the Saudis through the Carlisle Group even as oil prices got jacked up for enormous divedends to the oil companies. Bill Clinton served himself for two terms with a total disregard for the American worker with his NAFTA crap that has done more to put the American worker behind than anything in recent history.  Bush junior with his oil connections and staff that was the whose who in oil and government contracting. And now Obama with the banking industry heirarcy from wall street.

        Perhaps a vote for Palin is not out of line with regards to the American penchant to vote either unqualified or seriously biased candidates into the presidency.

        I was just hoping we could put behind party politic long enough so as to correct our mistakes rather than continuing down this path.

      2. Stan K profile image59
        Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Some of the stupidest people you've met graduated from Harvard?  That's an interesting basis for an argument. 

        I didn't go to Harvard, but I did go to a University and before that a community college.  While in community college, I studied undergraduate economics and philosophy.  At an undergrad level, I was able to form opinions on the basis of academic study and the mild observation of global events.  I'm pretty sure Harvard requires some undergraduate study and possibly requires decent grades in those topics. But, you must be right about all the dummies that are not only accepted there, but graduated from there.  Particularly those that went into graduate school there and got a Juris Doctorate - bunch of morons?  Interesting argument.

        Palin didn't form any real opinions - she isn't even sure if Africa is a country or a continent.  Would you vote for someone who doesn't know if Africa is a country or a continent?  Do you think that if she runs that people will discover the many many more elementary school fundamentals that she lacks?  She must be qualified for another job, even in this economy. 

        She is! I recently read an excerpt about her personal characteristics that might help get a more suitable job:

        "Sarah Palin is the peppy cheerleader in high school all the boys thought was so sweet but the girls knew was really a vicious shrew. She's the new girl in the office who wears tight shirts and three-inch heels, is super-friendly to her male superiors, ignores the other women, and gets promoted sooner than her more capable and hard working peers. She's the outgoing PTA mom all of the other women are scared to cross because they will find themselves put on the worst committees. Only a woman knows how to give another woman a sweet smile and at the same time cut her down to size with an artfully crafted 'compliment' without male observers having a clue about what just happened. It's like a dog whistle."

        I'm not sure if I understand all the nuances of the "artfully crafted compliment" - I'm a male, however, I can tell the difference between a person with a Juris Doctorate (from any university let alone Harvard) and a person who didn't bother to grasp 4th grade level geography.  I can make that observation with my lowly, non-Ivy league education.  Can you?

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well said Stan.  I wonder what it is that America finds Palin as an answer to these difficult times.  Is it the back to the basics approach that cuts through all the crap that is the appeal?  The screw the facts and possible consequences for straight forward resolve that makes it seem credible?  I do not get any concrete answers other than gut reaction and feelings when talking with Palin supporters.  One has to wonder what is up the sleeve of the shakers and movers within the Republican Right Wing when they put their blessing on her candidacy. It reminds me so much of the "W" phenomena and the path that led us down.  Who will be the brains behind the lipstick?

        2. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's not an argument in and of itself, it's a personal observation in response to your implication that graduating from Harvard qualified the inexperienced Obama to be president and that someone without ivy growing out their ass would not be qualified.

        3. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Would you vote for someone who doesn't know how many states are in our union?

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Good one. Obama supporters never seem to remember this. I'm not a Palin fan, and I'm not an Obama fan, either. So far, I like Huckabee for the republicans in '12.

            1. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Notice he's been putting the weight back on?

              1. 0
                Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                His Bass-playing gig is doing well apparently.

                1. tksensei profile image59
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess so. He'd have to be nuts to give up that sweet gig to jump back in the meat grinder.

                  1. 0
                    Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Play on your strengths, I always say....

            2. Stan K profile image59
              Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Is your argument really that Palin has an equivalent or proximate knowledge of history, law, and world politics as Obama or McCain?

              Is this lame excuse for an argument, "Obama said the wrong number of states", really your argument?  If so, please say so and we can delve into that one.

    2. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And who else?

    3. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "You need to have your head examined" is not an argument. Neither is "Scary" or "wake up!" "open your eyes!" or any of the other stock responses we see here again and again.

      1. Stan K profile image59
        Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good point - it's not an argument.  My argument was made in the sentences prior to that statement.  But, I'll rephrase.  Would you vote for a person who has a hard time with or fails to grasp 4th grade concepts like continents and countries?

        1. tksensei profile image59
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And I'll ask you again, would you vote for someone who doesn't know how many states there are in the Union?

          1. Stan K profile image59
            Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That is what you cling to?  Do you really want to compare the intellectual credentials of Palin and Obama?  Really?  We can do that if you'd like to dive into those details.

            1. tksensei profile image59
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I asked you a question. Would you?

              1. Stan K profile image59
                Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Not likely.

                1. tksensei profile image59
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you vote for The Obama?

    4. OregonWino profile image86
      OregonWinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with this.  I a a fiscal conservative but am decently socially progressive (I am ok with a set rule on abortion, such as 1st term or if medically necessary for the mother etc, I am fine with a homosexual legal equivalent of marriage, call it what you will etc.) However, I feel like I have no party as my options with Republicans are either RINOs like McCain or they are FAR Right wing hyper-religious persons like Palin.  I voted libertarian in the last election as, though I think McCain is a AMAZING man, he is basically a democrat who happens to be a National Defense Hawk.

  22. Stan K profile image59
    Stan Kposted 7 years ago

    To your points that you cited earlier about our government being corrupted on so many levels by international bankers, I agree we are in crisis and the crisis is more one of corruption than economics.  Campaign finance reform is my number one issue - until we resolve that issue, corporations, not elected officials, will continue rule in Washington and plummet this country further in debt with foreign wars and deficit spending.

    Palin does not have the tools to even see the crap, much less cut through it.  At the very least, an educated intellectual gives us hope that they might care more about understanding and resolving our problems rather than be overwhelmed by the notion of them as Sarah would be - if she ever had the intellectual courage to really face them - which she doesn't. 

    The situation is dire and Palin is certainly a train - train wreck for the Republican Party who should be trying to rally around a reform candidate who has an understanding of a constructive conservative platform.  I say all this as an independent moderate.  The conservatives have a traditional philosophy that Bush abandoned and Palin doesn't even bother to understand (she's still working on grasping 4th grade geography) - they need to stick to those fundamentals.

    Palin poses no danger to Democrats and that's unfortunate - because of this, there is not even an interesting discourse taking place - she's not making any genuine points because she's simply unable to do so without a good script.

  23. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    @ Stan.  We think very much along the same lines.  I too am a independent moderate but that is not what I am trying to understand.  I guess the psyche that Palin appeals to with her unflinching followers is what perplexes me.  Why is there no critcal thinking on the part of the followers? If the Rebublican Right can capitalize on it that is understandable but what drives people to support an obviously unqualified candidate?  I think you are right in your assumptions that her bid for the presidency is ridiculous and that the odds for a win are remote to say the least but why can't the droves of her supporters?

    1. Stan K profile image59
      Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Great question.  I'm not sure I have the answer, but I believe it is a failure of right wing talk radio and Fox News to reject Palin as a serious voice of their party.  Probably they've embraced her because their party is reeling. Anything that can solidify the only segment of their party that is still salvageable, the uneducated religious right, might be worth doing in their eyes.  They appear to starving for any "star power" they can get their hands on.  In the end, this ridiculous support of Palin by right wing journalists undermines their credibility.  Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Coulter and others - how much credibility do they have among independents and moderates (the swing voters) when they don't reject Palin as a serious voice of their party? 

      I believe that moderates and independents who voted in W in 04 made a statement in 2008.  That statement was that we want an intellectual in office who might have the capacity to fight the corruption machine.  It is sad that the Republican Party has been reduced to having the bulk of its support coming from the Religious nut wingers who would strip citizens of civil rights, support expensive and futile foreign wars, and reject the vast scientific consensus on global warming. 

      Palin is a dream come true for Democrats. She is the prime example of everything that was wrong with George W. Bush and this will be a constant reminder to independents as long as she is not rejected by nut wing political pundits. 

      Fear of losing the only base that is solid, the bible thumping ignoramuses, is the reason they cling to Palin.  This group (which represents a colossal failure of our education system), believe that "faith based" decision making is far better than reason and logic.  This quality in Palin is very appealing to them and it speaks to a discussion that is broken by religion.  How do you have a logical discussion with someone who gets their commands and revelations from the almighty?  It's not possible.

      Favoring "faith based" decision making is the enemy.  It is born of ignorance and manipulated by the powerful to promote unnecessary wars that plant seeds of discord and hatred for Americans for generations to come.  "Faith based" decision making is the the substitution of reality with fantasy - plain and simple.  Global warming can't hurt us! Only God can end the world and he told me this!  When you begin to ignore dangers that the world scientists agree upon because of your fundamentalist beliefs, you are the greatest danger to the survival of human beings.  On that basis, I submit to you that these right wing Christians are more dangerous than Muslim extremists because they have more power to do damage on a global scale.

      Fortunately, the moderates and independents had enough of the religious right wing insanity and Palin was McCain's undoing.  McCain was a centrist who supported campaign finance reform who appealed to traditional conservatives.  Then he brought aboard the nut wing Palin to pacify the far right Christian base.

      Apparently the message was not received by the Fox and the talk show pundits.  That will be their undoing again unless they start catching the drift.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Far lefties make a serious mistake if they think that an arrogant and dismissive attitude toward religion and normal, hard working Americans in those states you fly over between LA and NY is a viable political position. It may make them feel chummy and superior as they clang their martini glasses together but, well, you'll see...

        1. Stan K profile image59
          Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I agree with you.  Ignorance is always a threat and hard work is not exactly the staple of the ignorant.  It takes work to study and learn as well.  Perhaps I am underestimating ignorance and blind religious fervor.  Palin could prove that I've under-estimated the common sense and political IQ of the moderates and independents who will decide the next election as they've done so for decades.

          1. 0
            Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yep. Shoot at the Center now. big_smile

          2. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            And on it goes...

            Do you know why we've never elected an atheist President? Nevermind, just keep looking down your noses at those fools who cling to their guns and religion in fear. Just don't say I didn't warn y'all.

          3. rebekahELLE profile image92
            rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think that's already been proven... people lined up over night to buy a book she didn't write herself... there are no intellectual credentials. she couldn't even name a newspaper or magazine she reads and pawned that off as being surprised by such a question, come on. hmm

            1. 0
              Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              On the book tour, she is not to answer any questions.  Just sign. 

              That sounds like she's getting in line for a bid for the presidency to me. (Not).

              However, the majority of people DO NOT live in Ames, Iowa (she'd not show her face in Johnson County, IA, I can tell you that), or other quote, quote "heartland" communities.  Anyway, 'hardworking, fly-over country normal people' is a complete fallacy.

              1. tksensei profile image59
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                They exist, really. Even The Obama can see them when he looks down his nose at them.

                1. 0
                  Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, then I AM one of those (I am from Omaha, NE), whereas Sandra, of the West Coast, appears to be one of yours.  And jeez, TK, some of Obama's time was spent in Illinois.  Cliches, cliches, cliches.

                  And trust me, she'd be booed and then some in Johnson County, IA...I don't know if I've been in a more liberal place.

                  1. tksensei profile image59
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Is that near Kansas?

                  2. 0
                    Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Haven't been to Johnson County, but Missoula, Montana, could probably give it a run for its money.

                  3. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    According to the words out of Palin's book, she is more liberal than she is democrat or republican.

    2. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ask The Obama, he would know.

    3. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If you assume there is "no critcal thinking on the part of the followers" because you disagree with them, that is illogical.

  24. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    I don't think they look alike at all.

  25. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Edited:

    This is funny:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy0Nar34VII


    Mary Walsh is a comedienne who has met with many politicians and world leaders. Most have a sense of humour about the encounters smile

  26. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Huh?

  27. 0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    who?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He is referring to a slip of the tongue by Obama during campaigning.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, one is "a slip of the tongue" but the other indicates a fundamental lack of intelligence and education? My, how convenient. Maybe there are more serious points on which to focus.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The thing is Obama did it once...

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You know, I have heard newscasters on all major networks say "company" when they should have said "country" several times. Do you think these people (who no doubt went to almighty college) really don't know the difference?

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Slips of the tongue are to be expected with public speakers of course. Are you saying that everything Sarah Palin has ever said has been a mistake?

              1. tksensei profile image59
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Are you saying that every erroneous statement by a liberal is a "slip of the tongue" but every one by someone you don't like is cold, hard proof of hopeless ignorance?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I have never said that and I have never said Sarah Palin is hopelessly ignorant. I actually think she is a cold, conniving, politician who is exploiting the ignorance of others.

                  1. 0
                    Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe they all do to keep their jobs. big_smile

                2. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think it could be written off as you state.  Perhaps a preponderance of it might though.

  28. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Some muckey-muck or other.

    1. 0
      lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      oh I see.

  29. 0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    How are you Denno?

    1. 0
      Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Great. How bout you?

      1. 0
        lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        groovy and loving the fact I know nothing about american politics whew!

        1. 0
          Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You're not missing out on anything worthwhile.

          1. 0
            lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            hmmmmmmmmm  lol

            1. 0
              Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's funny that the extremists on both sides find it compelling. The Centrists just stand back and watch them shoot each other.

              1. Stan K profile image59
                Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Extremist!  LOL!

                1. 0
                  Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

    2. 0
      lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      can't find addicts forum can you?

  30. Stan K profile image59
    Stan Kposted 7 years ago

    I voted Libertarian.  I am a civil libertarian and a former Republican.  You see, the Republicans used to have a conservative economic platform and they used to support the civil rights of citizens.  When they abandoned those principles in favor huge government spending and the erosion of civil rights while they embraced the religious nut wingers who have a need to deny science, I abandoned them for another conservative movement. 

    However, your statement implies that Palin is somehow on the same intellectual playing field as Obama.  I'd choose Obama if given a choice between those 2.  Intellectually, he at least has the ability to grasp the problems at hand.

  31. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    I have about 100 pages left to read in her book.  I think she is an incredible person and I think she would make an excellent president.

    I think that all 'they' intentionally f**ked up her and McCain's campaign because they are afraid of what she can do.  Too many politicians afraid of losing their jobs.

    I think I would probably vote for her if she runs for president and I think I know why she quit as governor of Alaska just after the campaign. 

    I think she is incredibly intelligent and incredibly human.  I have a totally different opinion of her compared to what the media wanted me to think about her, which I fell for and now we have a god awful tyrant for president who spends our money like he owns it... wait, I think he thinks he does own it.

    She is more outstanding than 90% of Americans and I don't think anyone can really compare to what she has done.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So intelligent and human, wink, that she couldn't write the book, but has the good sense to make hay while the sun shines, as directed by a marketing staff.

      Sorry...but oh, boy, Sandra.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is really a great endorsement of her but on what do you base your opinions?

      I have only one thing that I think of when I contemplate her candidacy, she is a quitter.  We have a hard enough time with cheats and scoundrels taking the office let alone someone quitting halfway through their term.  If the critisism was too much for her as the Govenor of Alaska just imagine the headache the presidency would be for her. 

      What if the wars were to escalate.  Oh well I've had enough and I need to leave for the good of the country is not any excuse I want to hear from her.

      Your obvious anger towards Obama is clouding your judgement.

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, from reading her book and understanding how she works. 

        Something called the 'gag rule' she had to quite to disclose the information necessary to clear her name and tell us who she really is, something the media did a fine job of not doing.  I think she is a genius and she is brave and yes I don't Obama.

      2. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh that is rich on this thread, which is nothing but a litany of personal ******** about Palin and nothing about her positions on issues.

        1. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not a real stickler there FOR the policy issues.  Hard to find anything of meaning in her rambling babbles.

          And just FYI, since you are from East Coast and all, and may not know...(uh-huh)  No way will Iowa or Nebraska have anything to do with Palin.  'Republican' does not carry the same meaning there as you apparently think it does.  The politicians from my area are not social conservatives...  The are nearly all problem solving centrists interested in fiscal responsibility.

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There we go...

          2. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, am I back there? It's so hard to keep track...

    3. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But don't you know that she didn't attend an Ivy League college? How can she have any worth? She owns guns and goes to church, so you know she is evil, ignorant, and afraid. And of course no real woman could be a *gasp* non-liberal without being a vile gender-traitor!

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I did not attend an Ivy League college, but two state colleges in the Midwest.  My dad collects guns.  We grew up Catholic.

        What freakin' difference does that make?  Cliche, cliche.

        She is still less qualified to be POTUS than 1/2 the people I know.  She couldn't even write her own book.

        This says nothing but cliche.

      2. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, let's see here.  She owns guns because she hunts for her own food.  She stated in her book that she has not attended church in years.  And what does attending an Ivy league college have to do with anything?  Obama went to an Ivy leauge school and look where it got us today?  More of the same bs produces shite that smell like others people shite.

  32. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Interestingly, as she is now unceremoniously free from public office, it seems the state trooper (her ex-brother-in-law) who she had fired, and the chief in charge of said trooper, who she also had fired as he would not do her bidding and fire the ex-brother-in-law, are now preparing to sue her, as she can no longer use the power of her office against them.

    Real genius.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well she was already in court for that and the judges sided with Palin.  So now they want to sue her again for what they call say was wrongful termination when she isn't their governor anymore. 

      They would be suing her for something else.

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, initial battle lost, but not the war, ie.

        What I'm saying is all these wrongs do not = right.  They = exactly what they amount to with Palin.

        But you have the right to believe what you want to believe.  And also are proof that not everybody on the West Coast is as they would believe, whereas not everybody in 'flyover' country is a good, hard workin,' Republican, whatever normal American in that simplistic cliched thought.

  33. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    no

  34. 70
    logic,commonsenseposted 7 years ago

    I am 'hardworking, live in fly-over country and consider myself fairly normal' and I do exist Virginia!
    Obama isn't the only one that looks down on us.  Just about every Senator does as well most of the House.
    Sarah Palin is cute and fun to listen to but she doesn't have the gravitas to lead this country.  Kinda like Obama.

  35. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Sarah Palin/ Peggy Hill; separated at birth?

    1. 0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey--I LIKE Peggy Hill!

      1. 0
        Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol

  36. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Both parties suck. Oh, hey is that Pumpkin pie?

    1. 0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You eat PUMPKIN pie???? Why not APPLE pie??? Aren't you a REAL American??? lol

      1. 0
        Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol

  37. 0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    PS--Both parties do suck.

    Somebody give the doggy a cookie or something. He keeps barking.

  38. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I don't care how fat the Huck gets. He's smart, funny, a good communicator, and he's always respectful to others and willing to listen to the views of others. Even the liberal media say he's their "favorite conservative."

  39. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    I connect with the Musician part. That would be it, however. I hear he is a nice guy, though.

  40. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Unfortunately, he doesn't have personal wealth or the backing of big businesses. Actually, this kinda makes me like him more.

  41. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    No serious candidate should have the backing of big business, just individual(small) contributors.

    1. tksensei profile image59
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Never happen. Money finds its way to pols like water running downhill.

  42. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Yeah, well, in Perfectville nobody gets toothaches ever, either. big_smile

  43. 0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    And Pat Paulson is still dead.

  44. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    Oh, now you don't want to talk about insignificant public misstatements? Ok.

    1. Stan K profile image59
      Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Let's discuss the point.  That's my suggestion.  The point that some here are trying to make (including you) is that Palin has the same grasp on history, law, global politics, and economics than Obama has.  I'm prepared to compare their academic backgrounds and look at the differences if you would argue that Palin is equally qualified to Obama, McCain, Gore, Clinton, or Bush (both Bushes have graduate degrees). 

      So, let's run with your argument that Palin has the academic background and knowledge that would prepare her for the highest office in the land:

      In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester.

      Next she transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major.

      Transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters. During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant beauty contest, then finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant, at which she won a college scholarship and the “Miss Congeniality” award.

      She then left the University of Idaho and attended Ma
      tanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term.

      Returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

      For those of you not keeping score, that’s 4 different schools in 5 years, two of which were community colleges. Her greatest “academic” achievement was 3rd place in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant.

      Let's fast forward now to the policies she supports on education:

      Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
      Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)

      Committed to providing strong education, including morals. (Jan 2008)

      Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)
      I believe we have a creator; and many theories of evolution. (Oct 2006)

      Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)

      In summary, Palin believes that Creationsim, a religious ideology, should be given equal weight with a theory based on scientific observation and analysis, that schools should impose their own morals on children, and that parents should be able to censor books that don’t align with their world view.

      Last but not least, she states that she has no real interest in improving her knowledge.  As stated my hub titled, "Sara Palin's Book Displays a Real Commitment to Foreign Policy Ignorance":

      In Going Rogue, Ms. Palin talks perfunctorily about fiscal responsibility and a muscular foreign policy, and more passionately about the importance of energy independence, but she is quite up front about the fact that much of her appeal lies in her just-folks, “hockey Mom” ordinariness. She pretends no particular familiarity with the Middle East, the Iraq war or Islamic politics — 'I knew the history of the conflict,” she writes, “to the extent that most Americans did.” And she argues that “there’s no better training ground for politics than motherhood."

      Someone pass me the Advil..

      My response to that is:

      How arrogant would you have to be, to be satisfied with yourself for knowing about the Middle East "to the extent that most Americans did"? How is it easy to justify complete apathy for anything that smells of thorough knowledge or in depth study of the global politics with which an elected Vice President or President would most certainly engage as a part of their duty as a world leader? We have an answer from Ms. Palin: "there's no better training ground for politics than motherhood."

      Her ignorance is now negligence.  According to her, has no intention of improving her own knowledge and even beginning to understand the basic tenants of conservative economic and political philosophies.  Why would she need to? She's been a mom.

      Let's compare her intellectual ambition and academic background to President Obama's shall we?

      Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College. After two years he transferred in 1981 to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and graduated with a B.A. in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.

      Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year.During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.

      For 12 years, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School; as a lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a senior lecturer from 1996 to 2004. In 1993 he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a law firm of 12 attorneys that specialized in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.

      Now, my point about Sarah was that I believe it was not a slip of the tongue (Africa the country statement) because of the high level of intellectual incompetence that has been exposed repeatedly and her significant, self-stated, apathy toward knowing about critical topics like the middle east.

      You tried to compare Obama's geographical error to Palin's to apparently say that in effect, they are on an even playing field with regard to their qualifications for the highest office in the land. 

      So, that point is now officially toast (you made me pull in the facts that supported the obvious) and I doubt you were sincere in trying to make it - you are intelligent enough to write and read, so were you really trying to say that Palin is qualified?  Really? 

      Palin is a nightmare for the secular conservative movement.  She is a nightmare for the Republicans and she will not attract centrists, secular conservatives, or independents.  She does attract the religious extremists, but unless the nations IQ is reduced dramatically in the next 2 years, the religious extremist vote won't be enough to carry a victory.

      1. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, how is it that The Obama could get through almighty Harvard and not know how many states there are in the Union?

        1. Stan K profile image59
          Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It must be a conspiracy.

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Must be. Probably has something to do with a pipeline.

      2. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, so she graduated from college. Doesn't that make her virtually a god to the highly evolved elitists?

        1. Stan K profile image59
          Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Do I need to post the comparison again?

          1. tksensei profile image59
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a yes or a no?

            1. Stan K profile image59
              Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              uh, no

              1. tksensei profile image59
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Ah, so it's gotta be an Ivy League college?

                1. Stan K profile image59
                  Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No, it doesn't. 

                  When you read (hopefully read) the education and career histories that I posted, did you notice a difference between them?  Based on that, who would you say is more qualified to run for President?

                  What about Palin's apathy toward learning more than "the extent to what most Americans know" about topics like the middle east?

                  1. tksensei profile image59
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah, so back to being an elitist god!

                  2. tksensei profile image59
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    We should probably do away with elections and just appoint the valedictorian of Harvard each year as President.

                  3. tksensei profile image59
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Before landing his current gig, The Obama compared rather poorly in that match up.

      3. tksensei profile image59
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL! If she is still making the libs froth at the mouth and quiver with righteous rage, she must be doing something right!

  45. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    So, Stan, you think Obama is all knowledgeable about history and politics? Let's see:

    A promise to close Gitmo before deciding what to do with detainees.

    Can’t make a decision about when to make a decision about Afghanistan.

    Promising unemployment would not rise above 8%.

    Misstatements about the Apollo missions.

    Misstatements about who was jailed for the ’93 WTC attack.

    Doesn’t know the difference in median and average.

    Has no clue as to how many Christians are in the US.

    Misstatements about the creation of jobs in non-existent districts.

    Said the Selma March of 1961 led to his conception. (The march was in 1965.)

    Referred to Kennedy’s presidency of 1960.

    Related the story of a Kansas tornado that killed 10,000 people. The actual death toll was 12.

    Lied about how much money Rezko raised for him.

    Has done a 180 on the decriminalization of marijuana.

    Cited Jay Rockefeller as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee when Bob Graham was chair. He was also wrong about how Rockefeller voted on the war resolution.

    Said he does not take money from lobbyists.

    Forgot that he had run televised campaign ads in Florida during the primary.

    Said he received a lot of foreign experience living in Indonesia. He lived there from the age of 6 until he was 10. How much can a kid that age learn about foreign policy?

    Has cited articles from Ebony and Life that never existed, according to the editors and the archives.

    Talked about how difficult the Ethics Bill was to pass. (It took 14 days in all.)

    Confused about which states he won in the primary.

    Said he passed 900 bills in the state senate. The actual number is 26.

    Forgot that Reverend Meeks appeared in some of his (Obama’s) campaign ads and was a chief fundraiser.

    DID NOT KNOW RUSSIA HAS VETO POWER IN THE U.N.!


    Does this make him a bad person? No, it makes him human and not omniscient or even particularly brilliant. All politicians are just that - politicians. And Obama is no different. I am not impressed with his knowledge or his Harvard education. Since he claims to be a professor of Constitutional law, I would think he should know most of this stuff.

    1. Stan K profile image59
      Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and taught constitutional law as a Professor for 12 years - real moron.  Great argument - I wonder who came up with your list.  I'm sure he made some mistakes but the list is transparently exaggerated and most of the items are simply laughable.  Are you really claiming he lacks the academic and intellectual qualifications for the highest offices in the land?  Is that really the point you are trying to make?  If he doesn't meet those standards in your book, would Palin?

  46. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Oh, and BTW, I never said Palin was qualified to be POTUS. I'm not a Palin supporter. I don't hate her like many do, but I don't think she'd make a good president. I don't think BO will, either. I hope and pray I'm wrong in that assessment.

  47. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    And how W got a history degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard is beyone me. Don't you have to pass public speaking??

    1. Stan K profile image59
      Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I said in every statement in my posts that W was far far more qualified from Palin.  I believe that he understood his own party's philosophy.  If were not for his pandering to the religious right and his faith based decision making, I would have agreed with him on more points.

      Bush is far more qualified - he worked his butt off in school to become more knowledgeable and I respect his accomplishments in this area.  You may note that my observation of Palin is totally unbiased.  I said McCain is more qualified (for other reasons), Obama, Gore, and W.  That's because I'm not supporting the view of a Democrat or a Republican.  The question is: "is Sarah Palin the next George Bush?"

      That implies a presidential run and I'm doing my very best to expose the truth about her qualifications in this regard.

  48. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I already stated my views on Palin.

    I have an ex-student who graduated from Harvard who has trouble crossing the street and tying her shoes. I want someone with education AND common sense.

    1. Stan K profile image59
      Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Right, throw all that education out the window!  Our candidates don't need knowledge, they need to shoot from the hip or let God tell them how to represent this country, right?

      Yeah, all we need is common sense and obviously Obama and the others who have an education can't tie their shoes. 

      Well, that is Sarah Palin's reasoning. Looks like you agree with her on that.

  49. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    So, do you think Bush was a great president because of his academic background? The presidency requires more than just an ivy-league education.

    1. Stan K profile image59
      Stan Kposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Read what I wrote please - I'm talking about qualifications.  That in fact, is my entire point.  Yes, I believe George Bush, despite the fact that I disagreed with many of his policies as I disagree with Obama, was far more qualified than Palin to run for office.

  50. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I do not want Palin to run!

 
working