Let The "Race" Begin

Remove all ads!

The "eternal campaign" is about to resume. We haven't gotten over the last one - I think they called the results from Alaska today - and the next one begins. But Sarah isn't wasting anytime. I suspected Palin would run, unless her party can talk some good sense into her (I wouldn't find that very likely).

She's so full of it. Unless she's been having a 2-year conversation on whether she should run or not. What, is Todd going to have to take time out from his snowmobile for the campaign?

No doubt, hunting from an airplane, fishing, making reality TV and going on outdoor vacations are no doubt "unique qualities" that Palin would "bring to the table." Good luck.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ed-in-the-internal-deliberations-for-2012-run

 

Are you kidding? I don't think Obama ever stopped campaigning. It is utterly ridiculous, though. She has few if any more qualifications than Obama did (in her defense, governer is at least an executive post), and she's already basically stated that her family can't handle the rigors of a visible public office. To me, that means that if she runs, she's either a quitter and a coward or she doesn't care about her family any more. Either way, I'm not voting for her.

 

I think she'll run, but I don't think she'll win. The field would have to be extremely weak for me to vote for her.

The left has already shown they'll stop at nothing to smear her as much as the possibly can. Palin Derangement Syndrome is almost to the level of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

That sounds just a little strange considering what has been said about Obama from the other side. I'm not accusing you of that, KJ. Only pointing out that there is plenty of smearing going on from both sides in the media these days. Personally, I'm starting to believe that "smearing" someone with whom you disagree is now the standard for political discourse, regardless of party, or political ideology.

 

That's true. Politics seem even more divisive than ever.

And to dmc, I mean stuff like this.

Really?. She should be disqualified from the Vice Presidency for having a special needs child? That's what I mean about attacks on her for stuff completely unrelated to whether or not she's qualified for the job.

 

The Queen of Smear herself, speaks:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sarah-palin-obama-needs-to-stop-listening-to-his-chicago-thug-advisers/

Then there is this little "gem:"

What a jerk this guy, Gary Jackson is. You know, we can play this game all day, KJ. There is plenty out there.

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wo...d-the-cost-of-fighting-chicago-thug-politics/

 

I'd probably have a jump on Sarah Palin. Total idiot, though.

 

Yep, that's some pretty classless stuff there. Tack on a few more years of that, only louder and more frequent, maybe accuse her of a few murders and the like, get her in a high-profile scandal, and then she and HRC could swap war stories. Until then, she's no worse off than most in the business. By the way, remind me to discuss the "stop at nothing" left wing when the amount of outlet spewing stuff like her being a fascist or her husband a separatist approach those who propagate "proof" (or just claims, without any backing) in Obama's "marxism", muslim religion, or the like.


@ NOG - I don't know, until the late summer of 2010 Obama didn't strike me as in campaign mode. Sure, he pushed for his own policy, but isn't that what a president - or any politician, for that matter - is supposed to do?

Anyway, didn't Palin leave her governorship at least partly due to the media attention supposedly harming her family? Yeah, after jumping in with both feet on the healthcare bill debate ("Death panels" sounds so innocuous and certainly wouldn't agitate the press) and playing kingmaker in the last elections, that would be the perfect finish.

 

What I would question is why is John Roberts discussing potential presidential nominations? Neither "John" nor "Roberts" are particularly uncommon names - there's probably dozens of people with such a name in the US. There was no picture on the link - so I cannot be sure - but I'm assuming the "John Roberts" referenced is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court??? I certainly don't think it's appropriate for him to chime in on anything regarding who should or shouldn't run for office, or what their reasons are or aren't for their decision.

I think Obama's biggest mistake was NOT campaiging enough for the first year in office. I know a lot of people on these boards don't like Bush, but he made campagning for policy during his eight years in office an art form. During the health care debate, Obama gave one prime-time press conference, went to a couple of town hall style meetings filled with people who supported the policy, and basically said, "good enough".

Bush would never have done it like that. We would have seen him multiple times on TV, campaigning everywhere and anywhere until it got done, and then he'd keep on campaigning after the fact to tell everyone how great it was. In short, Bush would SELL it. And I don't mean that in any derogatory manner towards Bush. Nor do I mean that you should agree with the policies of the Bush administration. What I am saying is that campaigning, even when you're not in an election cycle, has proven to be an excellent means of getting the stuff you want to get done ... done.

While I agree that I don't think think she can win the presidency, I'm not so sure she won't win the primary, because it appears that the Republicans WILL have a pretty weak field, as you suggest. I look at other people likely to run, and see people like Romney and Huckabee. While I think both of those guys have regional appeal - Huckabee in the South, and Romney in the northeast and Rocky Mountain states (and limited appeal in the Rust Belt), Palin has aligned herself with the Tea Partiers, and - as we've seen in great detail over the past few months - they're EVERYWHERE. So unless some by-gone party favorite like Newt Gingrich gets in the race, I'm not going to discout her chances in the primary.

On the other hand, while she has the popularity to potentially win the primary, her negative scores among independents are ALREADY over 50%, which would be a major hurdle to overocme in a general election.

 

Yeah, GWB and his "national tours," with selected, hand-picked Republican crowds. His tour to privatize Social Security didn't work out for him very well though.

I think she views herself, and some others do also, as the unofficial leader of the Tea Party. She actually did mediocre in the mid-terms, with loses in Alaska, which was a huge rebuke, Delaware, Nevada and Colorado. But she had a few wins as well, so she and the Tea Potters only had mixed results in the major elections.

 

It seems to me that in your rush to defend her you missed the point of what was said in your quoted passage entirely. It wasn't a question of her qualification for office, but rather a criticism of her judgment and priorities. He was suggesting that a woman with such a difficult parenting road ahead should have better things to do than become a national politician.

And dmc is right. Sarah Palin gives her critics enough rope that smearing her isn't necessary. Pointing it out when someone does or says something stupid is hardly a smear. Taking things out of context, exaggeration, guilt by association, etc. (example: "Obama pals around with terrorists like Bill Ayers") - that's a smear.

 

But that's hardly a reason why she couldn't become president though. George W. Bush was the master of doing and saying dumbass things, and you guys voted him in twice!

 

Hey, HB, don't blame DR, or me for THAT mess.

 

It's not about couldn't, HB. It's about shouldn't.

Again, it's an issue of judgment and priorities. If you have both a down-syndrome newborn baby and an out-of-wedlock pregnant teen (which would be one hell of a burden for even a stay-at-home mom), obviously you're putting personal ambition ahead of your family's well-being on your priority list by running for one of the most personally-invasive and time-consuming offices on earth. She's young - practically a baby in political terms. She could have run for national office later on when her family situation was less delicate. But she chose the spotlight instead. Criticism of her on that account is neither unfair or uninvited.

In light of the fact that she couldn't handle a single full term running one of the country's least-powerful governorships, I would think it obvious that John Roberts' skepticism of her judgment and ability to handle the job was dead on.

 

I disagree that she couldn't handle both. I don't think it's a fair criticism just because she happens to be female. If a male candidate with a special needs child happened to run, it would be a non-issue.

 

That's a very good point, DMC. But we know that she really has been setting this up for some time now. All that bull about her family coming before her politics is just that -- bull. Really, she is set now, both financially and in public life as a media celeb. She has a million dollar book deal, a media deal with FOX and her adoring followers throw money at her by the truck load. So what does she need public office for? This is all about Sarah, as is everything else that she views or touches.

Also, consider that she commented:

Really? How does she know what the "field of hopefuls" happens to be at the moment? No one knows that, since hardly anyone has announced yet. Can anyone here tell us for certain who is running? Of course not. Palin would not know the truth if it fell from the ceiling and landed on top of her. She counts on the rest of us being as clueless as her followers.

 

With Palin it will be a race to the bottom. Republicans beware.

 

Well not even Palin herself is with you on that one. She quit. Remember?