Sarah Palin was a virtual unknown, even in the US, when John McCain picked her as his vice-presidential running mate in August 2008.

But after parting ways with McCain, Palin has since become the standard bearer of the Republican Party and the conservative right in the United States.

Her opinions are sought after by a highly respected broadcast news organization.

Her family life is the subject of much fascination. There have been rumors her daughter and future son-in-law could feature in a reality TV show.

With her rising political profile, Sarah Palin has waded into New York City politics and in the process, invented new words. She compares herself to William Shakespeare.

She has used her popularity to raise US$1.3 million so far this year for her political action committee, SarahPAC.

This fund-raising largess has raised speculation that Sarah Palin could be preparing to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.

If she wins, that would indicate the American people have "refudiated" Barack Obama and chosen conservative values.

YYzU3wSfoq8&hl=en_US&fs=1"

Sarah Palin was a virtual unknown, even in the US, when John McCain picked her as his vice-presidential running mate in August 2008.

But after parting ways with McCain, Palin has since become the standard bearer of the Republican Party and the conservative right in the United States.

Her opinions are sought after by a highly respected broadcast news organization.

Her family life is the subject of much fascination. There have been rumors her daughter and future son-in-law could feature in a reality TV show.

With her rising political profile, Sarah Palin has waded into New York City politics and in the process, invented new words. She compares herself to William Shakespeare.

She has used her popularity to raise US$1.3 million so far this year for her political action committee, SarahPAC.

This fund-raising largess has raised speculation that Sarah Palin could be preparing to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.

If she wins, that would indicate the American people have "refudiated" Barack Obama and chosen conservative values.

YYzU3wSfoq8&hl=en_US&fs=1"

Maybe THIS is why the Mayan calendar ends on 2012?:jet:

Sarah Palin was a virtual unknown, even in the US, when John McCain picked her as his vice-presidential running mate in August 2008.

But after parting ways with McCain, Palin has since become the standard bearer of the Republican Party and the conservative right in the United States.

Her opinions are sought after by a highly respected broadcast news organization.

Her family life is the subject of much fascination. There have been rumors her daughter and future son-in-law could feature in a reality TV show.

With her rising political profile, Sarah Palin has waded into New York City politics and in the process, invented new words. She compares herself to William Shakespeare.

She has used her popularity to raise US$1.3 million so far this year for her political action committee, SarahPAC.

This fund-raising largess has raised speculation that Sarah Palin could be preparing to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.

If she wins, that would indicate the American people have "refudiated" Barack Obama and chosen conservative values.

And that just scares you witless, doesn't it, dummy?

That was a rhetorical question.

i think she should run

considering the lack of good entertainment TV, we need some humor and new malaprops

Cool. First we ban teleprompters and watch Obama flail. And WTF is a "malaprop"? You mean "malapropism"? Idiot. :killingme

I don't see the United States electing someone with so very little experience and such a very very thin resume.





Ok, that was funny.

I don't see the United States electing someone with so very little experience and such a very very thin resume.





Ok, that was funny.

Roger that.....:roflmao:

If she wins, that would indicate the American people have "refudiated" Barack Obama and chosen conservative values.


Don't all the opinion/popularity polls show that now?

I really hope she does run in 2012. I see her as a real person [not a professional politician] who shares my values in regards to what this Country should be concerned with and where it should be heading.
I do not rely on media reports of her, I've read her book, i like what she says in public and interviews.
The fact that the Obama Democratic Media attack every thing she says and does only shows that they are concerned about her followers.
She also reminds me of anyone of our Founding Fathers, She was not a Politician, stepped up to local politics to correct policies she believed were wrong. It was the people of Alaska who liked and eventually elevated her to Governor.
I'd like to see the 2012 Ticket as Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin.
:patriot:

I don't care if she runs. I won't be voting for her. I have nothing against her. I just have seen what happens when someone with little experience tries to run the country. They end up being managed by a confederacy of nitwits.

We need considerably more than someone with a "vision" or who shares the right views. What we need is someone who's shown they can do the job. I don't want someone "just like me". I want Superman.

I frequently make reference to the David and Goliath story from an angle that isn't often told. Sure, David was full of faith and believed Goliath was an enemy of God and needed to be dealt with, and boldly stepped up to the plate even though he'd never been in battle and as the king advised him, Goliath had been a solider all his life.

But what is often missed in the story is that David tells him, I've already killed lions and bears by myself. I've killed animals twice his size without any help. It wasn't until THEN the king was willing to put his faith in an otherwise untested boy. He HAD proven - and relevant - experience. He'd DONE it before.

I am HOPING that Sarah serves as a lightning rod, a red herring, to draw fire while the GOP preps a few really good candidates. If the country can ever get over their knee-jerk dislike of Gingrich, he'd make a great President, but I just don't see it.

I don't care if she runs. I won't be voting for her. I have nothing against her. I just have seen what happens when someone with little experience tries to run the country. They end up being managed by a confederacy of nitwits.

We need considerably more than someone with a "vision" or who shares the right views. What we need is someone who's shown they can do the job. I don't want someone "just like me". I want Superman.

I frequently make reference to the David and Goliath story from an angle that isn't often told. Sure, David was full of faith and believed Goliath was an enemy of God and needed to be dealt with, and boldly stepped up to the plate even though he'd never been in battle and as the king advised him, Goliath had been a solider all his life.

But what is often missed in the story is that David tells him, I've already killed lions and bears by myself. I've killed animals twice his size without any help. It wasn't until THEN the king was willing to put his faith in an otherwise untested boy. He HAD proven - and relevant - experience. He'd DONE it before.

I am HOPING that Sarah serves as a lightning rod, a red herring, to draw fire while the GOP preps a few really good candidates. If the country can ever get over their knee-jerk dislike of Gingrich, he'd make a great President, but I just don't see it.

I'll save you the trouble. The GOP is an organization that promotes the next person in line. This is, typically, a person who finished second in the previous primary; Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain. Bush 43 was the one exception in our lifetime. Romney will most likely be the guy.

This is why the GOP tends to be better organized and more competent in the day to day running of government; whomever won has experience with all the players and everyone is on board with them. The Dems, on the other hand, are a faction party and this results in hugely divided loyalties all the way to the finish line and then, when they come to power, it's messier than the GOP in terms of operations, organization and unity of purpose.

Romney finished second, is working the party, the players, doing his homework and will enter the 2012 race already nationally known and with much organized support within of people who already know they have a job if he wins unlike the Dems where everyone is fighting for a job. Add to that he has the presence and likability factors, speaks well and is able to talk about any given issue without sounding like someone who crammed on buzz words the previous night.

Palin doesn't fit the model for a number of reasons, similar to Quayle, (losing veeps) including not finishing her term as gov.

[QUOTE=SamSpade;4335197]I don't care if she runs. I won't be voting for her. I have nothing against her. I just have seen what happens when someone with little experience tries to run the country. They end up being managed by a confederacy of nitwits.QUOTE]

George Washington comes to mind
:buddies::patriot:

I would not vote for a middle of the road Republican like Mitt Romney. His second amendment record is atrocious and his state has that failing 'public' health care system. We need a true conservative running, and the GOP doesn't seem to want to go down that road.

I would not vote for a middle of the road Republican like Mitt Romney. His second amendment record is atrocious and his state has that failing 'public' health care system. We need a true conservative running, and the GOP doesn't seem to want to go down that road.

I agree with the bolded, totally. However, the GOP knows, as a matter of fact, that they can get at least 60 million votes from people who will vote 'Les Evil'. It's not difficult for them to argue Romney is better than McCain coupled with the shine being off of Obama.

I would not vote for a middle of the road Republican like Mitt Romney. His second amendment record is atrocious and his state has that failing 'public' health care system. We need a true conservative running, and the GOP doesn't seem to want to go down that road.

Mitt Romney on the Second Amendment | Mitt Romney Central (http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/second-amendment/)

Not sure what record you are speaking of. Does he have a voting/veto record on gun rights in Mass? I don't know of any legislative act he would have been involved in to develop such an opinion. If you know of one, please post a link here. I'd like to know.

Larry Gude for President in 2012!

:jameo:

Larry Gude for President in 2012!

:jameo:

Given that the majority around here doesn't even agree with me, I see problems down the road. :lol:

We need considerably more than someone with a "vision" or who shares the right views. What we need is someone who's shown they can do the job. I don't want someone "just like me". I want Superman.


:yeahthat: Maybe someone with previous experience in the executive branch of government, possibly a former governor. It would be great if there was one that had experience in negotiations with foreign governments, something like an oil pipeline treaty with Canada.
Someone that got there on their own, worked their way up from a community college instead of being groomed for the job by unknown benefactors.

I'll save you the trouble. The GOP is an organization that promotes the next person in line. This is, typically, a person who finished second in the previous primary; Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain. Bush 43 was the one exception in our lifetime. Romney will most likely be the guy.

I actually heard someone on C-SPAN radio pretty much say what you've been saying (although it might have been a re-broadcast of a Sunday show, I can't remember). That the GOP tends to nominate based on next-in-line seniority. They desperately need to break this cycle. True, they got lucky with Reagan - he WAS next in line, so to speak, having run before and gained prominence in the party. Heck, he came close to winning the nomination in 76, in the closest GOP primary I've seen in my lifetime.

But the Dems do something the GOP never does - carefully grooms whole squads of future leaders. Every so many years, they roll out squads of future Presidents, such as in '88, '92 and 2004. Of course, they usually crash and burn for also the same reasons - electability frequently trumps everything else, and they nominate boring twits like Mondale, McGovern, Kerry and Dukakis.

:yeahthat: Maybe someone with previous experience in the executive branch of government, possibly a former governor. It would be great if there was one that had experience in negotiations with foreign governments, something like an oil pipeline treaty with Canada.
Someone that got there on their own, worked their way up from a community college instead of being groomed for the job by unknown benefactors.

Except that Sarah didn't even finish her term. She was barely in for two years and spent quite a bit of it running as VP. And by 2012, she'll have been out of politics for several years.

I mean, we've had a history of truly outstanding statesman in the office. Why can't we find another one? Why should we be choosing someone who held a statewide office for half a term when there ought to be legions of men who've demonstrated they can do far more?

Sarah would be "settling" on the basis of presumed electability. Reagan may have been charismatic and charming, but he also had considerable experience. He was no greenhorn.

I mean, we've had a history of truly outstanding statesman in the office. Why can't we find another one? Why should we be choosing someone who held a statewide office for half a term when there ought to be legions of men who've demonstrated they can do far more?
.

They're gone :shrug:

We now have sound bite smiling heads whos only goal is to use elected office for personal gain

I actually heard someone on C-SPAN radio pretty much say what you've been saying No original thought on my part; this has been noted as the GOP way for decades(although it might have been a re-broadcast of a Sunday show, I can't remember). That the GOP tends to nominate based on next-in-line seniority. They desperately need to break this cycle. True, they got lucky with Reagan - he WAS next in line, so to speak, having run before and gained prominence in the party. Heck, he came close to winning the nomination in 76, in the closest GOP primary I've seen in my lifetime.

But the Dems do something the GOP never does - carefully grooms whole squads of future leaders. Every so many years, they roll out squads of future Presidents, such as in '88, '92 and 2004. Of course, they usually crash and burn for also the same reasons - electability frequently trumps everything else, and they nominate boring twits like Mondale, McGovern, Kerry and Dukakis.

The parties will NOT break their patterns until they have to. The Dems broke theirs because the left wing has become so powerful they insisted on Obama. They broke rules, they threatened, they attacked.

The GOP will NOT change because so many GOP'ers will just line up and vote for good 'ol Les when it actually matters.

The parties, we may not like to admit, simply do what we, the people, tell them to do. That is why is was critical that people who did not like McCain not make excuses to vote for him; Les is still less. Had McCain lost, but big, as he should have, the GOP would not be desperately and quietly trying to sabotage the Tea Party groups. They would BE them and they sure as hell would be abandoning the system that is going to give us Romney.

Maybe he'll be great.

They're gone :shrug:

We now have sound bite smiling heads whos only goal is to use elected office for personal gain

The parties are not acting for our interests any more, but rather for their own. They don't give us candidates that will act in the parties and peoples interests, they give candidates based simply on who they believe will be elected, simply to keep power for the parties. Think about it... the vast majority of Americans, of voters, are working class. Yet, nearly all our politicians at the upper levels are wealthy privilidged class, who don't actually work for a living, and are so out of touch with the bulk of America it's ridiculous. Why do we vote for these people? Better yet, why do we complain after we have voted them into office?

We need a people's party... and I don't mean communist or socialist. I mean peoples as in us middle class shmoes. We need to drop the rhetorical political arguments and issues that do not affect our daily lives, and focus on our immediate needs... and get sh*t done. Instead our elected officials spend hours, days,weeks pouring over crap that in the end, doesn't matter or makes our lives and country worse off than before, all in the name of creating more wealth for themselves and their vast donor lists.

We allow it. Until we decide as a nation to do something about it, we should probably quit #####ing.

Maybe we should stop worrying about resumes and 'experience' and start worrying about integrity. You don't need 'experience' to hold political office. You need heart, brains, and conviction.

Mitt Romney on the Second Amendment | Mitt Romney Central (http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/second-amendment/)

Not sure what record you are speaking of. Does he have a voting/veto record on gun rights in Mass? I don't know of any legislative act he would have been involved in to develop such an opinion. If you know of one, please post a link here. I'd like to know.

Here ya go for one;
Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information. (http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812)


Romney also spoke out about closing the so-called "gun show loophole".
He says he supports the second amendment, but only his version of it, not the Constututions version.

i think she should run

considering the lack of good entertainment TV, we need some humor and new malaprops



What? Joe Biden isn't stepping on his crank often enough for you?

I really hope she does run in 2012. I see her as a real person [not a professional politician] who shares my values in regards to what this Country should be concerned with and where it should be heading.
I do not rely on media reports of her, I've read her book, i like what she says in public and interviews.
The fact that the Obama Democratic Media attack every thing she says and does only shows that they are concerned about her followers.
She also reminds me of anyone of our Founding Fathers, She was not a Politician, stepped up to local politics to correct policies she believed were wrong. It was the people of Alaska who liked and eventually elevated her to Governor.
I'd like to see the 2012 Ticket as Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin.
:patriot:

Well said.

Having said that, I don't agree with her on everything. Isn't America great? I do admire her. She's got what we've always believed that Americans have always have; call it "grit." She knows what she believes, and she can defend her beliefs. She also knows what she doesn't know, and she's willing and able to make up for those deficits.

I'd like to see her run again as veep. My preference is for Huckabee. From what I can tell, he's made in the mold of Reagan.

Gingrich & Palin
or
Newt & Nugent
:patriot:

Gingrich & Palin
or
Newt & Nugent
:patriot:

Oops, I forgot Palin/Nugent :yay:

Oops, I forgot Palin/Nugent :yay:

No Newt, Too much of a Politician
:buddies::patriot:

No Newt, Too much of a Politician
:buddies::patriot:
Wrong !
He is too well educated to fit that bill !

Bab's and all "career" Politicians have to go no matter how smart they are and while they think about how Dumb they think we are.
:buddies::patriot:
PS: Nice Costume