What is all this babbling about? Yes, Palin has said she is interested in running for president. How scary. She is still just as ignorant as always.
“It’s going to take more than a village to beat Hillary,” she said. “We the people, we realize that this is war, it is war for the solvency, the sovereignty of the United States of America.” Palin said that Republicans need to prepare for attacks from the liberal media, which seeks to “crucify” conservatives, warning that liberals use Saul Alinsky-inspired political tactics, such as charges of “racism” and “sexism.” Republicans should reject these “Orwellian” and “disgusting charges from the left,” Palin said, before calling on conservatives to label liberals as the real racists and sexists: “Reverse them, for it is they who point a finger not realizing that they have triple that amount of fingers pointing right back at them revealing that they are the ones who really discriminate and divide on color and class and sex. We call them out. We don’t let them get away with it.”
Does Sarah Palin actually have ideas or is she just going to spend the entire time calling out the “theys” of the world? With Palin and Huckabee, we are sure to get a good side-show this election cycle. Poor Jeb Bush. Poor Mitt Romney. Those guys are going to take a back seat to the sideshow of Republican clowns. Will Donald Trump throw his hat in the ring also? He is always good for a few laughs.
Get your tickets now. This years Republican run is surely good for a few laughs. I have great expectations, in fact. Both Huckabee and Palin need to go ask for their day jobs back at Faux News. Jon Stewart was right!
April Fool’s day is in April.
Tina Fey is really a great look alike.
The Onion perhaps.
She has as much of a chance as Donald Trump has.
Hopefully she doesn’t run, same goes fro Trump because I agree with you, it will just take attention away from serious candidates. I think she will end up not running once she finds that there aren’t many donors lining up to support her.
Having said that, which Democrat clowns are running? So far it looks like Joe Biden is the only Democrat clown thinking of running. He is always good for a laugh, intentional or not. Then you have that Elizabeth (I’m a native American because of my high cheek bones) Warren clown, who says she isn’t running but everyone wants her to. I would LOVE to see her and Joe go at it in debates, I can see SNL doing that skit now… 🙂
It’s Bush’s to lose. I don’t see how he could lose.
Most of those running are clowns (Paul, Christie, Palin, Huckabee, Romney). Ryan’s out. Rubio’s a serious guy, but probably not ready yet.
In the end, the Bush “name” makes Jeb the only guy who can paper over the divide between having to prove to the Tea Party crowd that he’s a “real Republican”, and any veneer of electability.
I don’t think Romney is a clown. I could come close to supporting him if he was true to himself and ran as himself, rather than as a tea party wannabe.
I am sure that if Hillary wasn’t the “presumptive nominee”, and the field a bit more open, the Dems would have their own fringies running.
While you are quick to bash Palin, Huckabee, and Trump, you forget Joe Biden. Last I heard, he hadn’t said he wasn’t running, and Joe has been known to say some pretty bizarre stuff.
One more thing; if you happen to be a person right-of-center, some of the utterings of Elizabeth Warren seem pretty bizarre.
Her money talk seems very sane to me. The people who attack her over the idiot native American thing really have nothing else to go on.
I clearly understand how that happened. Ancestors become family folk lore. I grew up thinking I was descended from Patrick Henry. Once we discovered Dan, our official family biographer, Patrick Henry is no where to be seen. There are traces to other important people, such as Secretariat’s family, but not Patrick Henry.
@Steve Thomas
Ah yes, I forgot about Hillary (we are worth hundreds of millions but “we are not truly well off”) Clinton.
I wonder which Hillary will show up at different places along the campaign trail… this one was one of my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FlpbRFXC9E
I’d put even money on Warren being the Democratic nominee. I don’t see why history won’t repeat itself on Hillary – her lack of charisma or likeability is a real thing, and someone who inspires Democrats will get the nod over her.
Warren vs. Bush, I’ll bet. I think bush has by the far the best chance to win an election, but will be an underdog and will in fact lose.
I am starting to like Warren. She is my kind of Democrat, on at least some issues. I would love a President who is not in the bag on regulating big business. Obama has given a blank check and free get out of jail passes to them.
I think you’re right, Rick. Warren vs Bush. The Bush presidencies have ended rather badly so I don’t think most people want a third Bush. I also don’t think they want Hillary. A lot of people thought she had it in the bag the last time she ran and they were wrong.
Warren seems green also. I really just worry about supreme court appointees though. I don’t want another Citizens United.
@Rick Bentley
“I am starting to like Warren. She is my kind of Democrat, on at least some issues. I would love a President who is not in the bag on regulating big business. Obama has given a blank check and free get out of jail passes to them.”
Sounds an AWFUL lot like the rationale people gave when picking Obama over Hillary in 2008, and look what it got them…well, us.
Lot of water left to sail, before either party has a nominee. Been through enough cycles to know that the early leader rarely gets the nod. Right now, all you are seeing reflected in the polls and the media is “Name ID”. That’s it. Even early primary wins are no guarantee of the nomination.
@Censored bybvbl
“The Bush presidencies have ended rather badly so I don’t think most people want a third Bush.”
And the Clinton and Obama presidencies are “finishing strong”? Really, this gave me quite a chuckle on cold, dreary day.
The Clinton presidency actually ended on a rather strong note, if we use peace and prosperity as a gage.
Warren doesn’t seem “green” to me. She seems “Red”, and not “GOP Red”. More “October Revolution” Red. Well, maybe “green”, if you are thinking the European Green Party…but then again, they are “red” at their core to.
Actually I meant green as in unripe. She doesn’t seem socialist to me but I haven’t followed her all that closely. I like her stance on consumer banking.
I am sure my stepson is giving me the evil eye from afar.
I thought the first Bush presidency was about as good as any I’ve seen in my lamentably long lifetime (although I was rather keen on Eisenhower, also).
RE Mrs. Palin: It seems she has morphed from the interesting new face we saw at the Republican Convention in 2008 into a parody of the Tina Fey parody. When I watched this Iowa meltdown, I began to suspect that it was some kind of high-tech animation cartoon of the lady put together by the South Park crowd.
Sarah Palin is the Kim Kardashian of politics – an attention ho.
Too funny, Censored!!!!!!!!
“Sounds an AWFUL lot like the rationale people gave when picking Obama over Hillary in 2008” – Yeah, exactt same thing. Hillary’s the same person, arguably she loks worse for having Susan Rice fall on the Benghazi grenade and ruin her career protecting Hillary.
“and look what it got them…well, us.” A so-so Presidency with a guy who doesn’t know how to lead … perhaps Warren would be different.
The idea of having a woman in there … it would be interesting. that’d be a real change. moreso than Obama, who I personally see as a continuation of Bush. An inexperienced novice, who coasted through life based on charm.
I suspect we’ll see Warren and Bush. And meanwhile Hillary and Mitt will be sitting at home trying to figure out why the rest of the world isn’t as impressed with them as they should be.
Censored, great line there about Palin. But to be fair, Kim Kardashian is more thoughtful and articulate than Palin. Another difference would be that Kim has a thing for black guys, and Palin doesn’t like black people.
If Bush wins the nomination, we will have President Warren.
There isn’t much difference between them on issues that matter to conservatives. Why vote for Democrat-lite?
Heaven help us if you think Jeb Bush is Democrat-lite.
She’s right about one thing; it is a war.
I don’t really care who the nominee is. I just want the meanest, nastiest S.O.B. that can get elected in a general. I believe that S.O.B. Just might be Scott Walker.
He definitely is an SOB, no argument there.
I don’t think SOBs win in the end. Even Stalin and Hitler didn’t win.
@Moon-howler
Why shouldn’t I? He is just a little more liberal than GWB.
Remember…Bush was NOT considered a conservative until after 9/11.
Yes he was, by moderates and liberals. I don’t have any clue why you think that.
Labels are clouding your mind, Cargo. (Labels tend to have that effect on everyone, so you’re in good company). I would think that the primary distinction between “liberals” and “conservatives”, even in these days of completely degraded meaning of these terms, would be in attitudes toward government intervention in the economy. In that regard, Jeb Bush is very much a “conservative” and Warren is very much a “liberal”. Virtually all other issues have no “conservative” or “liberal” content, they are just problems that need attention. Attaching labels to those issue is just marketeering by campaign consultants hoping to hook people who don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to think through difficult public policy problems.
I think cargo is as wrong as wrong can be.
First off, conservatives will vote for the nominee in ANY CONCEIVABLE case. Whoever their candidate is, they could grow a Hitler moustache and eat a live baby, and they would still vote for him/her. For God’s sake, even after all those tea Party fits, they swallowed and voted for Romney en masse. Republicans always vote for their candididate, which is why they are actually unable to effect change in their party. By contrast Democrats occasionally don’t (see : 2000 election) and therefore swung theirs leftwards.
But also, I think that while Bush would/will probably lose, he’s got a better chance than any of the others. He would likely get a few Hispanic votes, if not the majority.
@Rick Bentley
Presidents Romney and McCain would disagree with you.
Both lost because of a lack of conservatives voting for them. We can’t affect change because the mainstream Republicans don’t mind being the minority party.
It just depends on who you ask. The reality is that neither pulled in as many moderates as was needed to get them elected.
@Scout
@Moon-howler
Compassionate conservative? Remember that?
Jeb is just the same. Pro-amnesty. Pro-big government.
Fox’s Murdoch just absolutely LOVES him. He said so to Valerie Jarret.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/politics/as-in-2012-romney-can-do-no-right-in-murdochs-eyes.html
Jeb is a liberal Republican.
Scott Walker 2016
Cargo, IMO, no Republican candidate could have won in 2008 and 2012. And I doubt that any will win anytime soon. The Republican party catered to bigotry for decades, and now has to live with the fact that non-whites don’t trust them. Not only because of people likie Mitt “47%” Romney. But more because every angry nasty bigot they ever had to work with or spend time with is a Republican.
” I could come close to supporting him if he was true to himself” as if there is a real lRomney. He’s a handsome shiny whore.
I think all politicians are whores. Romney isn’t any bigger whore than Cruz or Graham.
white parent + non-white parent = non-white child = no Republican President for a while.
“Liberal Republicans”, Cargo. Rupert Murdoch’s favourites.
What’s not “conservative” about Bush’s views on immigration. They seem pretty sensible to me. I equate “sensible” with American conservatism. What I remember about the phrase “compassionate conservative” (seems like an excellent sort of conservative from any standpoint, I’m sure you agree) pre-dates Jeb Bush by a good bit. @Cargosquid
Not according to the election night exit polls – in 2012 35% of the electorate called themselves conservative. In 2004 when Bush won it was 34%. The conservatives did come out for Romney saying they did not is just creating an excuse to why he lost.
@Rick Bentley
“The Republican party catered to bigotry for decades, and now has to live with the fact that non-whites don’t trust them.”
That is complete and utter BS. But then, I really don’t think I’ll be able to change your acceptance of the media narrative.
@Scout
Amnesty is no conservative.
Compassionate conservative implies that there is something wrong with conservatism. And that Bush would use government to be “compassionate.” Yes….it does predate Jeb. His brother used it. The Bushes are liberal Republicans.
@Pat.Herve
The electorate at the exit polls are the ones that actually voted. The 2-3 million that stayed home did not show up in those polls.
Why do you question what Rick said? The Republican party did cater to bigotry. Want some specifics?
The “conservatism” put forth by the Republican Party of today and the recent past has been reactionary, regressive, and generally devoid of ideas. They’ve become masters of fearful rhetoric and divisiveness and little else. Until they come up with solutions to problems rather than using the blame game, they’ll falter on the national stage.
Of course the bigot or racist label is going to be stuck on a party which has suffered conniption fits since a bi-racial man has become Prez. You can’t holler “Willie Horton”, “welfare queens”, “illegal aliens” and expect a different reaction. People hear your dog whistle and know what you’re doing. Trying to making voting more difficult for people doesn’t win supporters either.
@Cargosquid
Show your polls that state that the conservatives stayed home. They did not. 5 million votes in the difference of the actual vote, so even if your 2-3 million stayed home, no difference.
Rush is the vocal voice saying that the conservatives stayed home – in his opinion.
Cargo – why is “compassion” or its cognates incompatible with “conservatism”, whatever that means these days? The term doesn’t imply anything negative about conservatism. If there is a semantic criticism, it is one of plionasm, or redundancy. Conservatives need to reach out to those who don’t fully appreciate how much compassion is part of our moral values and assure them that at the core of our philosophy is concern for others.
@ Pat.: Rush has a lot of theories unbounded by facts. That’s how he builds ratings and ensures a big pay day from his sponsors.
“civilization as we know it would be in jeopardy” – Nancy Pelosi – Democrat – House minority leader – September 2014 quote when asked about the possibility Republican majority in the Senate.
Soooooo yeah….. The R’s are the “masters of fearful rhetoric”. (eye roll)
I expect Pelosi was probably rolling her eyes when she said it.
Censored was right on the mark, in my opinion. She was speaking of many different people. You are speaking of one person, Jackson. (who is inclined to say rather foolish things, in my opinion.)
JB: all pols these days dabble in fear-mongering. It’s cheap, it’s easy, and it works in a culture characterized by electronic news media looking for ratings and a citizenry too lazy or ignorant to separate fact from fiction. However, while this isn’t the preserve of either political party, I must say as a conservative that it’s embarrassing how such a wide swath of what passes for political discourse from the “conservative” side of the spectrum is Chicken Little, Hair-on-Fire, hysteria. It makes us all look bad.
“That is complete and utter BS. But then, I really don’t think I’ll be able to change your acceptance of the media narrative.”
Believe me, Cargo, I didn’t get that narrative from the media. I’ve dated and married black women for decades; most of my friends and family are black. I’ve had hundreds of casual conversations with black people about politics and social issues. I can see for myself that they’re not reflexively liberal, but are opposed to the GOP, and don’t want them in power, primarily because every jerk bigot they’ve met is Republican. It’s not about anything that Trent Lott or Jesse Helms did or said. It’s not a reflexive action against conservatism. It’s about the person at work who has a set of theories about how all the ignorant black people are running America running around having babies and not paying taxes, and that person’s reflexive adaptation of the Republican party and their position on every issue.
@Scout
That’s my point. He implied that HIS conservatism was compassionate due to his ideas about using more government programs while the standard conservative was not.
Well, do you believe the standard conservative is compassionate? If yes, how so?
@Moon-howler
PEOPLE are compassionate.
Some people are…some are not.
Political policy should be enacted that provides the greatest opportunity for people to advance through their efforts. Political policy should not be about “compassion” since the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Policy, especially federal policy, should be limited to that authorized by the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing Congress to take one person’s money and give it to someone else.
Not everything we say or do has to be based on the constitution. Furthermore, many things that require regulation didn’t exist when the constitution was written. Its a framework, not the bible.
I think policy should be based on compassion. That’s what separates us from less civilized societies.
That was a cop out as far as compassion goes.
My copy of the Constitution says that the “Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States . . . .” That seems pretty clear to me, Cargo. To what document were you referring?
Taxation is inherently a matter of taking money from some people and committing it to things that benefit others in varying degrees. One hopes those decisions are made wisely, but there is definitely something in the Constitution that authorizes the imposition of taxes.
Please show me from YOUR copy where the authority states that a government agency can remove private property from one private citizen and give it to another.
Taxes are used to support government functions, such as the military, roads, etc.
The early Congress even stated that there was no provision for taking money from the public to give to another citizen as charity.
@Moon-howler
Actually…yes…everything the federal government does MUST be based upon the Constitution. That is the point of having one.
Hmmmm, let’s see what the framers had to say about NASA.
Cargo – I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I glanced back up the thread and saw nothing recommending that we take “private property from one private citizen and give it to another.” I admit I didn’t read closely. But, in the interest of keeping an open mind, were you referring to something in particular?
I rather thought not.