After Sarah Palin's political action group formed yesterday, rumors have been swirling that this is her first step in a 2012 bid. She is the first governor from Alaska to form a PAC. When asked if she has her eye on the White House, "No, not at all.."
Palin said she started the PAC so that her state's tax dollars does not pay for events she attends out of state. Even though these events could help the state of Alaska, "we're not coming close to any ethical line to be crossed."
Palin has been invited and will be attending the Alfalfa Club Meeting, a yearly "who's who" in politics. President Obama will also be attending.
He seems a competant legislator, and could be good if he didn't seem to be another Republican pushing an agenda of social conservatism. While he's excepted his anti-abortion stance for medical safety or rape, he voted Yes on a permanent Patriot Act, Yes on a ban on flag burning, and Yes on the Federal Marriage Amendment. That's a No for me; there's just too much Big Brother in that.
You certainly put high hopes in Piyush Jindal, who will only be 42 when the 2012 election rolls around and would be the youngest person ever elected to office, even younger than JFK.
I'd hope the GOP would run someone more qualified for office, like Lincoln Chafee or Lindsey Graham.
Exactly the type of comment that the world expects from the US.
There is no such thing as democracy when the will of the people is put aside by rules and regulations imposed by an 'Old School' government. Yet you want your version spread around the planet.
Is there any wonder that the US is one of the most hated countries on earth?
The Mayans, not the Incas. And they are wrong. They simply did not make another calendar. That doesn't mean the World is going to end, it just means they were lazy savages.
Palin has a good reason not to run also. The media hate her with a passion. She disproves every liberal stereotype, that women need government assistance to raise children, with or without a husband, that a woman has to chose between a home life and employment, and about every other half-measure the Feminists every invented.
She is a strong, competent woman who manages to govern the largest state in the Union and raise a family at the same time.
Hillary looks downright folksy and unaccomplished by comparison. Jindal-Palin 2012! Dark-hued people and women for everyone! With conservatism! We've got it all!
"...She disproves every liberal stereotype, that women need government assistance to raise children, with or without a husband, that a woman has to chose between a home life and employment, and about every other half-measure the Feminists every invented."
She started off like one of us. Your average everyday person. She got involved with the PTA, then City Council. Became Governor. She has done this on her own merits, motivation, and ability. She didn’t have to sit in a large popular church, or be friends with lobbyist's, or associate with people who bomb government buildings. She sure as hell didn’t have to ride the white stained coat tails of her husband.
Bwahahahaha!!!! Maybe by land mass -- yeah, it's a tough job, governing all that permafrost ... meanwhile, Alaska has about as many people as, say, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Nah, no more stories about her wardrobe. Let's talk about her extra-marital affairs, her daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy and promiscuity and drug use, and about her future sister-in-law getting busted for selling hillbilly heroin. Now we're talkin'!
Funny. Out of all the stuff you did list, you still dont want to talk about her political achivements. Sticking to personal attacks. Are you sure your not Keith Oberman?
And none of that addresses the "nonsense" I was talking about. But now that you mention it, I don't believe most people have half an idea where Palin comes from OR what she's done. Look at BB's wild exaggerations of her record. I think they like her because they packaged her like Dubya...folksy and likeable, the "hockey mom," more of that "candidate you can have a beer with" crap. Besides that, her own coat tails are soiled, to boot. That you compare her to Hillary tells me you either made a serious error in judgement of where I was coming from or that you think Hillary was somehow someone to measure up to politically.
I don’t think there is a need to speak polish, or to repair a TV to be president. This comment was directed at the fact that Obama has NO (that’s right, NONE) executive experience in managing a state, a business, or anything else. If you would like to focus on that aspect of the argument, you will find yourself with no response. That is why you do your "circle talk" and bring up Palins sister, kid, and furthermore her non existent affair.
**A note to everyone. "circle talk" is a word that I created for my girlfriend. I created this for when she seems to be talking about something, but when you look at what she is saying - it’s just a string of words put together to make you think you’re talking about something that makes sense, but in fact it’s just a way to extend the conversation. The hopes of circle talk is that the other party will just get so fed up, they give up. I have mastered combating circle talk... :)
You are right. Obama was a Junior Senator only being in the senate 2 or 3 years before running for President. In fact, Biden (his VP) and Hillary (Sec. Of State) both said that he does not have enough experiance to be President. That was of course before he gave them employment.
when her nomination was announced by McCain for the election campaign some people here actually thought she was such a great choice that the Republicans were certain to win the election...imagine.
When are you guys finally going to learn, Obama was elected in 2004? He spent four years in the Senate before becoming your president.
And now it doesn't really matter whether he was the mayor of Hicksville, Alaska or the free-spending, lying governor of about 600,000 people -- now he's in charge of about 300 million Americans, including every single Republican dumbass among them. And about 2 of every 3 Americans thinks Obama's doing a good job, while only 1 in 10 Americans think he's doing a bad job. Have fun with those figures, pals.
"Obama has NO (that’s right, NONE) executive experience"
He actually has some very relevant experience from his pre-law school days as an organizer in Chicago. If you are curious as to what exactly that entailed read his book Dreams From My Father (1st published 1995).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'circle talk' was in vogue back in the mid fifties and was bragged about in the teen cliches as a way to avoid telling the whole truth to your parents or anyone else in authority when asked about your whereabouts or other personal inquiries. Not especially a lie, but a way to bend the truth a little.
if shes a conservative then what would you consider jindal?
im pushing jindal because hes the one i kept hearing about, i do not think palin is ready to be a president, but she is far from stupid or dumb like you liberals wanted to make her as, the media bias was so horrible this election and you cannot say it wasnt.
in a poll that i think i posted about more people knew about palins pregnant daughter and mccains houses then what party controlled congress or what state obama was from.
she needs more experiance before she can run for president. Also she was the person drawing all those people to mccainrallies, before palin was around no one was going there, she rallied some of the base, remember 46 million voted for mccain, i believe a huge percentage of that only was for palin.
we dont need another mccain like person running, ben i know you want a more moderate liberal pushover grab your ankles type republican but thats what got us into this mess in the first place, bush ran on a free market, the people first ideolgy and did nothing like he said.
he constantly moved for working with liberals and single handedly flushed conservatism down the toilet.
what we need is somone that is a fiscal conservative, a tax cutter, small government type of person that will run FOR REGULAR JOES, and they will be guaranteed a win, so many people sat at home the last election because of mccains constant grab your ankles stance for democrats.
I think some of the bad media attention o Palin has even soaked into your ears. You said she needs more experiance - but If you were to line up her experiance wih Obama's experiance....you would find she has more.
I think we all know that no politician is the salt of the earth (I would say except RP).
That being said - if we are going to criticize them, let us criticize them on something on their merits. And also lets criticize them equally. I am not saying that Palin is ready to be president. I am saying that WE dont know if she is ready because the media did not focus on her politics, but tried to sway our oppinion with her (as i said a thousand times above) makeup and clothes and personal life.
You can look up this string of emails. Not one person has said they dont like her because of governorship (sp?). We can not look past the fact that she must be doing a great job in her state with the highest approval ratings of any governor in the US.
OK, I admit, I trotted out the pair of Republican politicians I thought would get under your skin the worst.
Fact is, all that stuff you said Republicans need in a candidate -- McCain/Palin hammered that message. They said they'd cut taxes, cut wasteful spending, and as far as average Joes are concerned, they even hired Samuel Worzenbacher for the role of Joe the Plumber! None of that worked.
I don't know if Republicans are having trouble coming to grips with this or not, but the reality is that you guys are in the minority now. As of last year, 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats. Only 28 percent identified themselves as Republicans. And independent voters mainly favored Obama.
When your party isn't popular any more, it means you're doing something wrong. One thing you guys need to do as a whole is look at your rhetoric and imagine it was being said to you -- you'll find it sounds pretty angry and hateful. It's far past time for the Republican Party to do some self-examination and some soul-searching, and I don't see how it's going to become a majority party again without going more moderate, and backing away from the angry rhetoric. (That includes people like you.)
Ron Paul? Give me a freakin' break. You know he's anti-choice, right? Not only is that an unpopular position, it's ideologically opposed to his supposedly libertarian stance.
Yes I know. I agree with him - and believe the choice starts in the bedroom. If you dont want to risks of a baby, then dont make them. After that, it is the choice of the child. But obviously this is a two sided issue, people believe what they believe. The argument will never be over.
What I like about Ron Paul, is even though be does no believe in abortions - his political stance if he was to become president is - it is not the job of the government to regulate this. It is up to the states.
Takes a special someone to say "even though I dont believe in it, I follow the constitution and wont make any laws regarding it."
Regarding your comment to Cray0la. The sooner you stop bashing the repubs for everything thing, and touting the democrats as the answer - the more common sense you will make.
"The sooner you stop bashing the repubs for everything thing, and touting the democrats as the answer" What about when Republicans are to blame? Is is unfair to blame them then?
It does happen, occasionally, that Republicans make a mess of things.
"What I like about Ron Paul, is even though be does no believe in abortions - his political stance if he was to become president is - it is not the job of the government to regulate this. It is up to the states."
Exactly why I won't hold his opposition to abortion against him. For all the other reasons politicians trot out, this is the only reason I respect.
Yes. The repubs make a mess of things all the time, and for the last 8 years. But this comment was directed at Ben, who's only answer is Democrats. My point is, they are both corrupt party's only serving themselves with the exception of a few on both sides. So when your bashing the republicans, dont use the "democrats will save the day" speech.
The Democrats have been right on a lot of the big issues lately, while the Republicans have been wrong. The Iraq war was unnecessary, torture is wrong, the financial sector requires oversight, etc.
Secondly -- if it was up to states to decide on abortion, we'd have a *real* mess. Some states that kept abortion legal would become "abortion shops" -- come to sunny California, relax on the beach, abort your unwanted fetus. Of course, if you lived in Mississippi and couldn't afford a California abortion vacation, there's always accidentally killing yourself with a coat hanger.
Sorry, but I'd rather not have the United States lead the world in accidental deaths by coat hanger.
Ben - you do forget that Democrats voted for the war also, don’t you? And you also forget that when in control of the BOTH houses, they failed to pass a resolution to end the war. Just admit that they BOTH suck.
It's funny that you worry about people killing themselves with coat hangers, but don’t care about killing the child.
Secondly, an abortion is a medical procedure. They are not free, just like any surgery. If someone can not afford a hip transplant, I don’t think they will attempt to take their own hip off and replace it. And if these people are stupid enough to shove a coat hanger up their vagina, then they get what stupidity they give themselves. Instead I am sure that non-profit agencies for abortion would be willing to raise money for these people that can not afford. I am sure there are other options also – but we can not have an attitude that the government’s job is to fix everything, and to solve all our problems. We are smart people and just might be able to figure out things without their help.
It sounds like you like a socialist police state - don’t know why you didn’t like Heir Bush then.
Your crazy. Instead of speaking such nonsense why dont you at least state that the only 23 people who voted against the war were democrats (Joint Resolution 114).
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Robert Byrd (D-WV) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Mark Dayton (D-MN) Richard Durbin (D-IL) Russell Feingold (D-WI) Robert Graham (D-FL) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) James Jeffords (I-VT) Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) Jack Reed (D-RI) Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Paul Wellstone (D-MN) Ron Wyden (D-OR)
At least these people got something right once in their career. I dont think you know much about this, so quit while your behind.
And no, I'm not going to start condemning the better party because it's not perfect, or pretending that because neither party is perfect, neither is better than the other. A sensible person chooses whichever party or candidate seems best for the country and doesn't expect perfection.
No, don't leave! I so *desperately* want to explain, for the thousandth time, that you can't hold it against Democrats who voted for the Iraq war when President Bush was saying they could nuke us if we didn't take preemptive action. Bush made many assertions that a bipartisan panel determined were a misuse of pre-war intelligence, as that Associated Press article I linked to explained, and I just love trying to express this in different ways until it makes it around that elephant-shaped block in your head and registers in your brain! You can't leave me!!!!!
Im not defeding Bush by any means whatsoever. But not mater what you say, in fact, not matter what Bush said. Those Democrats and Republicans should have read the constitution. We dont go around attacking people to nation build. Ok...i didnt leave. lol
Both the Dems and the Republicans had access to the same intelligence the President had. They ready the intelligence. Any one of them who said they were misled are lying. If anyone could have called bullshit on this, it would have been Ms. Clinton. As Co-President, she would have known of any real threat.
Bottom Line: They voted yes because it was the right POLITICAL thing to do at the time.
No, actually the CIA *doesn't* go around giving out classified intelligence to members of Congress, precisely because of their tendency to blab like they did on 9/11 about how we knew it was al Qaeda behind the attacks.
The intelligence community provides a classified daily briefing and other information to a few people in the White House, and they disseminate what they can to Congress. What the White House did in the case of Iraq was to change statements such as "we think Saddam may be trying to reconstitute his nuclear program" to read "Saddam is trying to reconstitute his nuclear program."
Read the article I posted above. It's from an objective source, the AP, and explains everything in detail.
You've had your 15 minutes of "fame". Now go away and quit bothering everyone! Go sit on the sunny shores of Alaska and look over and see who all you can recognize over in Russia.
