Home

I like Sarah as a person. And I like her more after watching her on her show, where she dealt with that horrible woman who popped out all the kids.

And you also posted this:

And, you're their official spokesman? I always thought the Tea Party were a cross section of concerned middle Americans who want less government intrusion and balanced budgets.

I always thought the same about the Tea Party and have never said otherwise.
That is one big reason why Sarah has a 80%+ approval rating with the Tea Party-her record of fighting for less government intrusion and balanced budgets.

That is where you are wrong when you said before that the Tea Party only won primaries but not many 2010 elections. The victory pole has over 80 coups on it.

Maybe you should listen to less Mike Murphy and more Rush Limbaugh:

�If anybody is an obvious winner here . . . it would be Palin. Look at the grief and the mockery that she got for putting what the media claimed were targets on 20 Democrat incumbents on her website. Look at the grief that she's got ever since she was named McCain's running mate. Eighteen of those Democrats she targeted lost. That's a pretty amazing and impressive record. Sarah Palin targeted a bunch of Democrats for defeat, and 18 of them lost. That's more than any Republican elites are doing.�

You seem hell-bent to repeat 1964, and that was a major bloodbath that lead to the "Great Society". We need a good measure of Inclusion and less Exclusion to gather the majority it will take to turn things around.

I voted for Goldwater in 1964 and against LBJ and the Ghost of Jack Kennedy.
I still think Barry could have beat LBJ but I knew at the time-nobody was gonna beat the Ghost.

And I voted twice for Ronald Reagan-you got Reagan wrong too.

His record as President of the Screen Actors Guild is nothing compared to the reform work Palin did as Chair & Ethics Officer on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

For one thing-at that time Reagan was a liberal Democrat.

I knew that when I voted for him in 1980 and I knew that as Governor he was weak on gun rights.
However, I also knew he had balanced his state�s budget and the voters had given him a second term by a landslide.
That worked for me and I liked what Reagan was SAYING and I voted for him.
Hell, I wasn�t about to vote for Carter anyway.
The second time I liked what Reagan was DOING and I voted for him.
Hell, I wasn�t about to vote for Mondale anyway.

Reagan�s record and Palin�s record as Governors are a lot alike with their fights to balance state budgets and reduce spending-but Reagan has little compared to Palin about fighting corruption and ethics violations.


If Palin doesn't run or win the nomination, do you have a second favorite?
The field at present seems awfully thin. I hope we have someone else rise up and excite the country. Rubio is too young and has an insufficient track record. He will be a perfect second place on the ticket, however.

Gingrich has always been my go-to guy and I think his impressive wife could shut down a lot of the baggage issues.

But, I don�t agree with you about the thin field. Lots of good sharp people on their way up. Pawlenty-Thune-Daniels-others�


Paul Ryan has a longer track record than Rubio and will be up for reelection in 2012.
His dilemma is the same as other rising stars-do I stay where I�m at and use my
building seniority to do good work or do I move up to the Big House and do good work there?

Palin has said a lot of good things about a lot of the new Tea Party Heroes-but she really likes Paul Ryan�s Roadmap.

Ronald Wilson Reagan�s Successor: Sarah Louise Heath Palin

338...and a lot of her support went to Tea Party-backed losers.

We're not being negative in believing she isn't the right candidate. There are many reasons why we don't want her at the head of the ticket.

Something as simple of her screeching voice is a definite handicap. Only the choir likes listening to her.

When she abdicated as Governor she became suspect in many eyes.

She has been easy to stump in interviews.

She has very high negatives among independents and among women.

This is what she brings to the table. I would be a lot more enthused by a candidate that can pull in the independents and middle. An election is already lost if the candidate can't. The right conservative could... << Ronald Regan >>> for example...

http://themoderatevoice.com/61891/p...party-movement-but-most-have-no-opinion/

Safari, as Bowsinger just pointed out; she put 20 dems on a hit list and 18 lost. The great majority of R's she endorsed won. Who else on our team is out there going toe to toe with Numb Nuts and his gang? I have never seen such a bunch of p*ssy's as are on the R lineup! Is Romney taking on O? NOPE Is Huckster? NOPE Pawlenty? NOPE All of these guys are in a cold war bunker somewhere hiding. Sarah is taking it to the enemy. If these guys don't have a pair now they aren't going to grow a set when they are in the WH doing battle with dems. Any others on the horizon, maybe Ryan. He is a darn sharp guy. We put up someone like that I would wholeheartedly support him. None of these chicken chits and RINO's deserve a second thought.

338...

I agree 100%. That was why I said earlier that I believe we have not yet seen the candidate who will get nominated and who can win. Ryan is a good consideration, for sure.

There are 4 types of candidates:

1. someone you like who can win
2. someone you don't like who can win
2. someone you like who won't win
3. someone you don't like who won't win

I posted an earlier thread on Romney's poll #s. That doesn't mean I like him as a candidate but I think he's a #2. McCain in my opinion was a #4. He was a RINO and a weak candidate to boot. I THINK Sarah is a #3, but that is still to be determined. My HOPE is that we are still early enough in the process to find a #1 that I can wholehearted support. If that doesn't happen, I will support whoever the candidate is that runs against Obama because he is pure evil.

Couple thoughts:

I like what Sarah says, but I was not impressed with her short term as governor, and it's not the cutting and running that bothered me.

That said, the scary thought is, with the American populace being intelectually shallow enough to elect Barak to POTUS, there is no reason to think that Sarah couldn't do the same. Remember it's the American Idol mentality, and Sarah has looks and charisma. Equally as disturbing is that I can't think of a single suitable Republican to run as POTUS.

On the flip side, the republic continues inspite of it's elected officials.

The Beat Goes On!

Governor Palin writes the following piece at the National Review:
12/17/10
The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in America�s interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.

New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New START�s verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.

New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons � a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty? At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union. That position was right in the 1980�s, and it is still right today. We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population � whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administration�s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies.

There are many other problems with the treaty, including the limitation on the U.S. ability to convert nuclear systems to conventional systems and the lack of restriction on Russian sea launched cruise missiles. In addition, the recent reports that Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons (which are not covered by New START) closer to our NATO allies, demonstrate that the Obama administration has failed to convince Russia to act in a manner that does not threaten our allies.

If I had a vote, I would oppose this deeply flawed treaty submitted to the Senate. Just because we were out-negotiated by the Russians that doesn�t mean we have to say yes to this. New START�s flaws have to be addressed in the form of changes to the treaty language that, at a minimum, completely de-link missile defense from offensive arms reductions. Other issues would have to be addressed in the ratification process. If this does not happen either now or next year, Senate Republicans, vote no!

[quote=arctic338]Safari, as Bowsinger just pointed out; she put 20 dems on a hit list and 18 lost.

18 out of 20??


Lets punch a hole in that one quickly.

Palin endorsed and lost:

Christine O'Donald DE-Lost
Joe Miller AK-Lost
Sharon Angle-NV-Lost
Ken Buck-CO-Lost


Where did you get this 18 out of 20 number?

Well for one, in AK the Dem didn't win (wasn't the criteria Arctic338 used Dem losses).

Wrong! There was no Dem in that office there for she did not target a dem. She targeted another GOPer and bet the hell out of her in the primary but got creamed in the general thus can not be counted as a targeted Dem. Still the numbers are off period!

You guys are the ones who are wrong and arctic338 is right.

I guess you missed the special website [Take Back the 20!] Governor Palin set up to go after Democrat House lawmakers who voted for healthcare reform and hail from House Districts she and Arizona Sen. John McCain won in the 2008 presidential election.

�Three of these (20) House members are retiring � from Arkansas�s 2nd district, Indiana�s 8th district, and Tennessee�s 6th district � but we�ll be working to make sure that those who replace them are Commonsense Conservatives," Palin writes. "The others are running for re-election, and we�re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote.� Gov. Sarah Palin

Sarah lost two of the 20-Arizona 8th House District and West Virginia's 3rd House District.

The remaining 18 unlucky House Democrats went down the tubes.

18 + 2 = 20

For the record Palin did not endorse Sharon Angle in NV until after she won the primary.
What was she supposed to do? Endorse Reid?

Out of the more than 85 candidates that Sarah Palin either formally endorsed and/or donated to-and/or just supported-80+% won.

I am not poking at the success, good job! Just the forgotten 4 that she endorsed and lost. Endorsing Angle and O'Donnell was just pure crazy. Both ladies were/are nut jobs. Joe Miller was an example of a endorsement that should not have happened as well, lack of vetting here. I will bet Palin would like to have that endorsement back. Buck was so far to the right that voters in Colorado could not take his odor.

This, coming from "LyingAss Walt", whose head is so far up Hussein's azz he can tell you whether the Kenyan still has tonsils or not.

She missed on 4. Big fuggin' deal.

Compare that to Hussein's misses, outside of just being a complete miss himself.

For all her faults, and she has PLENTY, at the VERY least, Palin can at least PROVE that she's a Constitutionally legitimate candidate for POTUS. Something Hussein has never done, though he's spent millions to make sure he doesn't have to. Hmmm....

Why is that, Lyin'AssWalt?

Keep jabbing at the opposition, and ignore the 800 lb gorilla (no, not Michelle Obama... this time) in the room: B. Hussein Obama.

Angle?
Sarah Palin split with the Tea Party Express and did not endorse Sharon Angle in NV until after she won the primary.
What was she supposed to do? Endorse Reid?
O'Donnell?
What was she supposed to do? Endorse that RINO Mike Castle?
Miller?
What was she supposed to do? Endorse that RINO Lisa Murkowski?
You and I should live so long to see the day in Alaskan politics that Palin endorses a Murkowski.
Buck?
Palin did not endorse Ken Buck in his primary and it gets a little fuzzy as to how much support he got from the Tea Party. Depends on what account you read.
The only Palin endorsements I can find for Colorado is:
Scott Tipton-Colorado 3rd Congressional District
Cory Gardner-Colorado 4th Congressional District

I may have missed a couple...

Don't forget, she endorsed McCain, and he got re-elected

Sorry, couldn't resist

A lot of leg-humping does not a puppy......er, president make.

She should run even if she won't get the independants.. It would be nice just to see her out there calling out Obama and holding him accountable. She's the only one that can hold her own against Obama and Hillary.

The 20 were in the House. You named all Senate matches Walt.

Bowsinger,

IMHO she's a loser as a POTUS candidate for two very significant, tangible reasons.

First, her negatives are far too high.

Second, she won't carry the crucial swing vote, which is moderate in composition.

The Republican party just has got do better than Palin.