YOU WERE WARNED:
-
* Heather Cox Richardson: *
* Heather Cox Richardson is a political historian who uses facts and
history to put the news in context*
*There are a numb...
53 minutes ago
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Michael Savage is CORRECT on one point
The best thing that could happen to us is a Palin for president campaign. Savage is petrified, how yummy is that!!?? LOL. BTW, you are wrong Savage, your picks for presidential candidates are not electable. Shelby, Inhofe, Cornyn, Sessions, I don't agree with you! Yea we really need a military guy, that's all you righties think about is where is the next war gonna be. Get ready conservatives, Obama will have a second term.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Sorry, I can't listen to this wingnut anymore than I could Beck or Hannity. But I do agree, Palin is not electable. However, we have to remember, no one really thought Bush was either, and he made it twice. For sure no one thought he would be elected the 2nd time.. So don't count them out.. and with the recent ruling by the SCOTUS, there is going to be lots of money behind her... (Rupert Murdoch comes to mind, not to mention Fred Malick) So never count it out...
Palin quote: "How's that hopey, changey stuff workin' out for ya?"
Observation: Is it me or does "hopey, changey stuff" sound a lot like praying?☺☺☺☺
Frodo does not want to make anything easier for the Republicants. However, it has been his personal honor to vote against Newt Gingrich on three occasions. Double or nothing if he picks a teetotaler for Veep?
no way Annette, not in a million years will that woman be elected. If she had Hillary Clinton credentials then I would worry, but not even the republican party will vote for her. You can't win the presidency with only 20% of the country behind you, even if they are wingnuts.
Savage was tolerable, take a listen. He even played some Dolly Parton to mock Palin.
Absolutely Frodo! Is this all the right has to offer, all those old has beens? Horrendous!
C, don't say that phrase, it makes me puke! Yea, she is real presidential. Can you see her now giving an overseas speech to dignitaries and saying "you betcha"!
BTW, you are wrong Savage, your picks for presidential candidates are not electable.
The ideological hard-liners on the right are still drawing the wrong lesson from 2008. The Republicans nominated a moderate centrist (a RINO as the hard-liners put it) with a war record, and he lost big, therefore next time they should go with a fire-breathing ideological purist. They still don't realize that someone like Huckabee or Jindal or Cheney would have lost even bigger than McCain did. McCain was probably their best shot. It's just that after eight years of Bush, it was almost impossible for any Republican to win.
It's pretty clear that Palin hurt McCain's chances overall. I personally know one person who intended to vote for McCain but finally couldn't because she was too worried that Palin might become President.
It's interesting that while Savage says his big issue with Palin is electability, he doesn't mention Romney. Romney is probably their most electable candidate overall, but he couldn't get the nomination in the first place because the Republican party is too dominate by teabaggers and hard-liners like Savage.
Annette said...
Sorry, I can't listen to this wingnut anymore than I could Beck or Hannity. But I do agree, Palin is not electable.
That's what they said about the ASS-HOLE in the White House now.
A Bloody Mary + two aspirin worked for me
72% of Republicans who like her do not think she's qualified. Everthytime she opens her mouth her numbers drop. I predict she'll be following Phyllis Schlafley shortly.
I think Palin is a fine woman, and a good example for our daughters to follow, but she's just not presidential material.
Neither is Obama, but he got the job so here we are. Another point my fellow conservatives fail to note is that in 2012, Obama will be qualified to be president because he has 4 years experience. Sorry, but 4 years as president trumps 2 years as governor of a sparsely populated state.
I'm probably helping you lefties by pointing this out, but you are mischaracterizing "tea baggers."
It's not a homogeneous group, just as liberals are not. Both sides make the mistake of just lumping everybody else into the "other."
Anyway, Tea Partiers will admit that it was a mistake to let Bush blow all that money while not saying anything about it. They hate the "Compassionate Conservative" crap, and they hate the way Bush grew government more than any Democrat save FDR. They will also take a more constitutional approach versus your standard Rightwingchristianconservative.
Many, including me, want government out of religion and religion out of government, while maintaining that a valedictorian can invoke Jesus, Allah, Buddha, whatever in her graduation speech. Congress shall make no law abridging her freedom of speech.
Populist Conservatism is taking a libertarian turn, so you should keep your eye on that...
Well, I've said too much and have been too candid about my own side. I guess I don't make a good token...
hey mutilator, who said our President Obama wasn't electable, racists??
There are just some elections that are decided long before a vote is cast. The 2008 election was one of them. The republicans could have run Jesus and they would have lost.
In 1980 they could have run Satan and won.
silver if the country did not think Obama was qualified then how was it he won by a large majority. The country trusted he could do the job. I don't believe it was just a vote Against repubs. Palin simply has not the intelligence, world knowledge, any leadership skills to be a leader of ANY kind. Just my humble opinion...
If tea partiers want to be taken seriously by the left then they should distance themselves from racists, haters, and yes religious fanatics like Palin. Religion and politics don't mix and this notion God is concerned who the president of the USA is is preposterous.
Thanks for the comment silver.
yes Leslie, thats exactly who Palin follows, Phyllis Schlafley!
thanks Infidel. Mormon Romney, thats HIS problem.
Truth do you think a vote for Obama was just a no vote for ANY republican? I don't, I think the country truly trusted and believed in Obama and his message.
Silverfiddle,
Yes I think you gave away some of the Right's secrets-are you turning double agent:)
Seriously, you'd written "Populist Conservatism is taking a libertarian turn, so you should keep your eye on that..."
Would this indicate a split-maybe too strong a work, a rift between the Fundamentalists and those of a more Libertarian bent?
I am so left I pulled the fuse on my VW's right directional signals, yet I get along well with conservatives. It's the newcomers,Tea Partier's if you will, who I clash with. I think because they simply repeat dogma without the basic understanding of someone who has followed the political picture for years.
Of course there are those on the left who reflexively condemn anything Republican with the same lack of depth, IMO the difference between them and Tea Partier's is the "Green Tea Partier's" aren't organized, at least that I've noticed.
SF: you are mischaracterizing "tea baggers." It's not a homogeneous group
This is actually already becoming obvious, with the divided attitudes toward the recent "convention", among other things. Also, I don't think anyone is making the error of considering teabaggers and conservatives synonymous. The former is a subset of the latter, maybe not even a very big subset.
thanks Infidel. Mormon Romney, thats HIS problem.
That's part of it. Some of the Republican base wouldn't support Romney in the primaries because he's too moderate, which is one thing, but there are also many who would object because he's a non-Christian (most fundamentalists don't consider Mormons Christians), which is a stupid reason to reject an otherwise-viable candidate, but there they are.
Truth do you think a vote for Obama was just a no vote for ANY republican? I don't, I think the country truly trusted and believed in Obama and his message.
Some people did. Nevertheless it's undeniable that Bush's record put any Republican candidate at a huge disadvantage. It was that, combined with the onset of the financial crisis just before the election, the guaranteed Obama victory. He might have won without those factors, but it's far from obvious. His inexperience and prior associations were a serious concern for a lot of people, including me.
He has performed much better in office than I expected, but at the time of the election, low expectations were justified.
It's important not to get over-confident. If the economy is still in bad shape in 2012, and if the Republicans have tamed their crackpot elements by then and nominate a moderate who doesn't turn off centrist voters, it's not impossible they could win.
It's not impossible they could win. I don't know Infidel, I guess I am much too partisan because I can't see one republican, at this time, who I think could win. They all sound like morons to me, big whiny babies. Did you see Jon Kyl on Candy Crowley this morning? Try to catch it later today if you can.
"I am so left I pulled the fuse on my VW's right directional signals"
Man, you crack me up, Oso!
I have written on my blog that too much is made of splits, cracks and fissures within "the movement," so-called. My bottom line is that conservatives are not really "movement" people, and most will simply vote for whoever is the most conservative.
Palin running for president will cause a big split.
If she gets the nomination she'll never get elected (disclaimer: I would vote for her if she's the nominee. I'm a rightwinger after all).
If she doesn't get the nomination her people will take their ball and go home, refusing to support whoever is nominated. It's like the Romney and Huck people. They hate each other. OVER POLITICS!!!
That is what I really hate about politics, the hero worship.
Infidel said -It was that, combined with the onset of the financial crisis just before the election, the guaranteed Obama victory
No doubt this was a huge factor but the GOP candidates themselves cannot be overlooked.
McCain has a proven track record for making snap decisions, using bad judgement, shooting from the hip, not knowing his facts and a host of other less than stellar descriptors.
His selection of Palin is a perfect example - but we've examined those pretty thoroughly.
The fact that David Brooks and Colin Powell think she is a woman of no substance says plenty. And they aren't the only conservatives who say this.
I think the selection of McCain and Palin directly impacted on over 200,000 conservative Pennsylvanians switching parties before the election. I'm sure many of them will return to the GOP - unless the Tea Baggers become more powerful.
I'm thinking and hoping this movement is going to hurt the GOP enough that the Democrats will benefit.
You and I trusted Obama Sue. There is a percentage that voted for him because they had their fill of republicans. I hope in 2012 they remeber the mess republican rule left President Obama.
"McCain has a proven track record for making snap decisions, using bad judgement, shooting from the hip, not knowing his facts and a host of other less than stellar descriptors."
Correct you are, especially that "shooting from the hip" part. He was married 3 times, need I say more?
Truth: "I hope in 2012 they remeber the mess republican rule left President Obama."
God, I hope so, too.
CDM: McCain has only been married twice, the first time to a woman named Carol. They had three children.
There's a lot of good/juicy info here. McCain doesn''t come out smelling like a rose - but she still "adores" him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
silver you would vote for that woman just because of party?? That is unbelievable to me. If that incompetent bimbo was president I would move to Canada in a heartbeat!
tnlib - I counted Cindy as being #3. I just think it's funnt how Mad Jack has just as big a problem keeping it in his pants as Bill Clinton, not worse, but just as bad.
"silver you would vote for that woman just because of party?? "
Not because of party, but because she would be the more conservative of the two candidates.
I would have to see who she surrounded herself with. That is just as important as the person herself. No president does it alone.
If Colin Powell ran on the Democratic ticket I would vote for him against her. He is not as conservative, but the vast experience difference would obviously trump all.
I think PeeWee Herman would trump Palin in the smarts department, lol
CDM: As far as "women" go, Cindy might be #45. : ) He was a swinger that's for sure. He wasn't a bad looking fellow in the old days but now he reminds me of a rodent.
The way he treated his first wife after she was so hideously injured is no different from the way Newt and Edwards treated theirs when they were fighting cancer.
While Clinton has a graphite zipper I can't picture him doing something like this should Hillary become ill. Besides, he might have a heart attack ala Nelson Rockefeller.
One of the things I left out in my catalog of attributes was his involvement in the Keating 5.
Post a Comment