"Schieffer on Palin: NO FUTURE IN POLITICS (CBS)

1. 61

   fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years ago

   Translation: Sarah Palin, stop dreaming about becoming president and go babysit Bristol Palin's child!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well I wouldn't count her out just because of what Bob Schieffer says.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Schieffer is pretty reliable. More reliable than Dan Rather is anyway

         replyreport
         1. 59

            speaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How can you say someone is reliable when your talking about an opinion of what might happen in 3 years?

            replyreport
   2. 0

      cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      if I could just get past that shrill, whiny voice of hers...

      replyreport
2. 74

   rhamsonposted 13 years ago

   If she wins the nomination of the Republicans it will further bolster votes for Obama.  If the Republican party wishes to change their destiny they have to come up with a good candidate.  Even with all the disfavor "W" had in the 2004 election he beat Kerry.  The Kerry platform seemed to say that he would not do much different only better.  In other words the candidate of no ideas.  McCain got branded the same way to a certain extent.
   
   Palin would immediately polarize the Republican party as when she went on the ticket in 2008. There was almost an even split between the party constituency.
   
   The Democrats are hoping this as a best case scenario that can be played out to re-elect Obama.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hate to say it, but I think you are actually right, here.  Lot's of people who don't want to vote for Obama wouldn't vote for Palin, based on convos I've had about it.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         While I am not a member of either party I do wish we would get some better choices from them if they are the ones to offer the leading candidates.  The peculiar part about this whole process is that while the nominated candidates vie for votes from either party the Independent vote is getting harder for them to appeal too.  This may be a result of party platforms being too rigid or not relevant to the issues but it should be a wake up call.  The Independents are becomming larger and a three party election may loom in the future because of their bungeling.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's why I think it could be an issue.  Lots of people didn't think GW Bush would be re-elected.  I hope BO is a one and done candidate, but the independents are the wild card.
            
            A multi-party election is something I wish for, but it would be a double-edged sword by splitting up middle and conservative votes.  We had the exact same thing happen here in a mayoral election with a 4 term incumbent leaving and the top two candidates lost to a third (who is more of the same and part of the established power circle) due to vote splits.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Granted that awful results could follow some of these elections perhaps voting on issues other than party power and influence may make this a true democracy eventually.  A hard pill to swallow but if the result is getting self rule back it may be one we should endure.

               replyreport
   2. 61

      fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "If she wins the nomination of the Republicans it will further bolster votes for Obama". OK, I can't argue with you there.

      replyreport
3. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 13 years ago

   Well I don't agree. 2012 is a long way from here and by then Obama will have made such a mess of the American economy, the republicans could put up anyone and win. Obama will be a 1 term president.

   replyreport
4. 65

   Daniel Carterposted 13 years ago

   The one point about Palin that analysts agree on is that she is woefully underqualified and a very loose cannon. Romney thinks he has a shot at 2012, but I don't think his money can buy the candicacy, and I think he will only continue to show he is noncommittal to anything except his own agenda of gaining power in addition to his wealth. (That and the Mormon issue. Mormons continue to lose credibility over all on so many issues.)
   
   There may be a dark horse that will appear in the Republican party. Someone may yet be savvy enough to see the mess and the opportunity and create an additional stir as Obama did. However, that person must be mightily shrewd and incredibly connected. I don't see that happening, because I don't see "God's Only Begotten Daughter" (Oprah) backing anyone but Obama in coming times.
   
   It is a mess that will likely not unravel easily. But the one thing I'm sure of is that the red-neck approach of Sarah Palin and her reckless, flippant remarks are costing her ground on a daily basis.
   
   That is as it should be.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I think most will see through Romney.  He's more of the same.  Palin appeals to people the same way Bush did in his first run because she seems less a part of the political establishment.  She will get a lot of votes if she ran, make no mistake, but would it be enough to win?  It depends on if middle Americans, who haven't been participating but are now getting anxious, decide to flood the polls the way a segment of Obama's supporters did.
      
      As for her being unqualified, a governor has more experience with the moving parts of gov't than a freshman Senator, so I don't know that it makes that much of a difference...just my lowly opinion. 
      
      I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment on Oprah, though.  Forgive my ignorance, but is she a major factor for upcoming elections?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think you are correct in assuming there will be some support for her but I think America will have a hard time with her record as Govenor of Alaska.  The allegations and early departure from office whether related or not will have voters wondering if she is a competent choice regardless of her executive experience.

         replyreport
5. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

   I can't get past any part of her~~ ever.

   replyreport
6. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   
   
   yeah shooting wolves from helicopters and cuttin' down moose doesn't set well with me...

   replyreport
7. 0

   Revive@OwnRiskposted 13 years ago

   Endorsements are huge in voting years. Endorsements line people up behind those who share similar opinions as themselves. Oprah carries a lot of power. (It was her who filled the stadium in support of Obama, not Obama.) I believe that's one reason why Obama stole the show last year.
   
   Palin will have a hard time in collecting endorsements that really matter enough to sway general votes. She is too specialized, and too renegade. However, she makes for a wonderfully entertaining distraction. She'll always get lots of press time because of that.

   replyreport
8. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   I'm glad she used a ghostwriter for her book, otherwise it could very well have been called "Going ROUGE".

   replyreport
   1. 85

      rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
9. 74

   rhamsonposted 13 years ago

   What amazes me about the Sarah Palin phenomena is the acceptance she recieves by intelligent women who rally to her  gender rather than the substance of her words. As a woman I would be offended by the party that promulgates this activity.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Now you lost me.  You think Hillary's support was solely based on "the substance of her words"?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well I never was a fan of Hillary and on the other side of the coin I think she was too smart for her own britches.  But yes I agree there was a real degree of gender put into selling her candidacy.
         
         I think Hillary is a smart and savy politician and that she was much more qualified to serve as president although I wouldn't want to see her brand of politics in charge.
         
         But the senseless answers to questions Sarah Palin gave only proved that she was not ready to be vice president let alone president.  I don't see how anybody can deny her lack of preparedness to serve at that level.  The answers to the questions and her statements can only lead one to believe there was something other than substance being sold us during that election.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            From both left and right...all the rest doesn't matter...

            replyreport
            1. 74

               rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               If you feel that way, then I guess you are a part of the phenomena as well.  Your reasoning is what is part of this debate and forum post.  Can you explain it and how the two are connected?

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I am stating my opinions on how things might go, but I'm not sure about what "phenomena" you are adding me into.  I never said I supported anyone on this whole thread, so maybe you can make your statements clearer in order to get a good response?
                  
                  While I do not support Palin, to say she has no future in politics is wishful thinking.  Right now it seems like(and maybe it's always been this way) the elections are about who can get folks whipped up.  Palin has proven she can do this.  Just because I'm not falling for the mess fed to me by either party, doesn't mean others aren't.  I think McCain might have won if he had selected someone like Huckaby or Romney instead of Palin.  I'm not betting on the teams, but the game is fun to watch.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Your failure to distinguish between the presidential candidacy of Hillary and the vice presidency of Sarah Palin is where I got lost in your post.  The two are different in that the Hillary candidacy was in reaction to the other minority candidate in Obama.  This was based on a minority issue.  Once Hillary was out of the race McCain introduced Palin into the mix as it was merely a reaction to the women vote he might be able to capture from disgruntled Hillary supporters because of Palins gender.  The two never really competed with each other but one party tried to capitalize on the after effect.
                     
                     And I agree McCain might have made a much stronger showing had he picked someone showing leadership rather than exploiting a loop hole.  He lost is the only concilation.

                     replyreport
10. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago

    Her dramatic contrast to the left especially women on the left make her a unique curiosity. The right needs substance not gimmicks that was the problem last election, no substance. They sacrificed the middle and lost control of the congress and the rest was writing on the wall.
    
    I voted Republican solely on Obamas lack of credible experience and nothing he's done so far has changed my mind.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       She is indeed a curiosity - worthy of Ripley's.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Revive@OwnRiskposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          And about a few martinis to sleep it off.
          

          replyreport
    2. 91

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Well, that would rule out Palin, too, in your book.
       
       Your favorite candidate for 2012?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I don't know one, I've had enough of buisness run government as soon as money's involved there goes morals and ethics. McCain was just cannon fodder. Maybe Huckabee or Romney. I doubt seriously that America is ready for a Mormon president his beliefs are strict and uncompromising and liberals would be enraged. Except he did manage Massachusetts and they are pretty liberal.

          replyreport
          1. 91

             livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Sounds like Hannity is trying to rebrand Romney. Probably won't work.

             replyreport
11. 59

    C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

    For what ever reason, I can find no other instance of a VP candidate getting such attention.  I hear people tell me that they actually voted for McCain because of Palin.  When has anyone voted for president based on their running mate? Its my opinion that for the most point VP's are irrealevant. 
    
    
    Who was Nixon's VP?
    Who was Ford's VP?
    Who was Carters VP?
    Who was Reagan's VP?
    Who was Bush's VP?
    Who was Clinton's VP?
    Who was Bush's VP?
    
    Bet you most people couldn't even name the above from memory....

    replyreport
    1. 74

       rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree but the part about Palin being a heart beat away from the Presidency really added value to the pause we all had with her and her readiness.

       replyreport
12. 72

    Jeffrey Nealposted 13 years ago

    Okay, that's why I was confused.  My earlier response was in reference to the selling of Obama, not Hillary, and yes I thought it was a bit sorry tactic to throw in Palin there.  It was completely transparent to both the wife and I, and she would have voted for McCain if he hadn't have done that.  It made McCain look desperate, I thought.
     
    I don't think Palin will be bad for politics, but just like BO, I don't think she should be President.  We need more people like Palin (in terms of her willingness to go her own way) in politics, though, since it's obvious that she scares the establishment.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I think we are pretty much in agreement and I think if they had somebody like Palin with more savy and understanding of relevant issues I could vote for her no matter the party.

       replyreport
       1. 91

          livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Really?
          1. She's a compulsive liar.
          2. She believes she's going to witness the Second Coming.
          3. She has a disturbingly Manichean worldview (health care reform is "downright evil" most recently)
          
          The problems with this woman go far beyond her lack of familiarity with political issues (although that is a huge problem too, because they stem from her complete lack of interest in them).

          replyreport
13. 79

    europewalkerposted 13 years ago

    I don't believe she is very intelligent and just hearing her speak makes me cringe!

    replyreport