1. FRAGaLOT says:

    @ #1
    Seems to me anyone with $100 million in their pocket, and some public popularity is qualified to run for office. Nothing else matters these days. The majority of voters at large don’t give a shit.

  2. MrWindows says:

    It’s humorous to see the fear displayed above by those on the left and the self-proclaimed ‘independents’ over Sarah Palin.
    She’s a quitter, a tea-bagger and evidently the object of more than one cave-dweller’s puerile fantasies.
    Firstly, if you are so concerned about her being a quitter, read her book, or at least a few newspaper articles. She was forced to resign for financial reasons because she couldn’t continue to afford the lawyer’s fees required by the incessant ethics complaints promulgated by those on the left seeking to destroy her out of base fear of her popularity. Every one of the ethics charges levied against her were shown to be baseless. (Except one trivial issue where she ultimately reimbursed the state of Alaska, that had she fought, she would have won also). On a Governor’s salary in most states, unless you’re a millionaire going in, which she wasn’t, anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with the funds required to defend one’s self against the tidal wave of crap lawsuits that the state of Alaska was not reimbursing the Governor for. Her only escape, and for that of several of her staff members similarly being attacked, was to resign and go off and earn some real money. They were literally hounded out of office by.
    The term ‘tea-bagger’, is another obvious tag by the frightened left, a slur meant to associate a legitimate populist political movement with a sexual act well-known among the homosexual community. It’s interesting to see how the Democrats seem to throw groups of their own constituents ‘under the bus’ in aid of their political pogrom.
    Now, admittedly, I’m a conservative identified with the Republican side of the aisle. An admirer of Sarah Palin, even. After reading her book, I have even more respect for her than I already had. I wouldn’t however see her as my first choice for the top slot in 2012. I could see her return as the veep candidate, but I would much rather see her as a Senate candidate. I think she would make a better alternative than Murkowski’s annointed daughter, but Alaska also has a Democrat Senator that will be coming up for re-election in 2014. Hell, if Hilary can do it and get away with it, Sarah can.
    I would also echo another statement from above, that we ought to clean house, both Democrats AND Republicans. It is way past time for term limits and time for new blood. One of the reasons I’m supporting J.D. Hayworth over John McCain here in Arizona.
    Regardless, I still see big gains for the GOP in this Fall’s elections, although the jury is still out on whether they can regain control over either house. Still, the Republicans need to stop spending like drunken Democrat sailors, and return to the Reagan ideal of fiscal responsibility. Otherwise, we will get rid of ALL of them, and seriously consider third parties. (Nutcases like Ron Paul excluded.)

  3. Phydeau says:

    #32 Dream on, Mr Windows. Dream on. 🙂

    You’re an admirer of a politician who can’t string together two coherent sentences?

    Still, the Republicans need to stop spending like drunken Democrat sailors, and return to the Reagan ideal of fiscal responsibility.

    Would that be the Reagan ideal that never submitted a balanced budget in 8 years? The Reagan ideal that left the country in far more debt than it started with? That Reagan ideal? 😉

  4. MrWindows says:

    #33: Yes, I mean the Reagan ideal that significantly reformed the tax code so as to enable the record surpluses that Clinton’s administration took credit for.
    The Reagan that pushed for a balanced budget amendment, and seriously considered assuming the existence of a line-item veto not explicitly mentioned in the constitution in order to balance the budget unilaterally. Unfortunately, no administration has dared to seriously test that theory.
    And since we’re on the subject, why don’t you mention the fact that revenues increased so dramatically during the Reagan administration specifically due to the tax cuts, that the Democrat-controlled House through all 8 years giddily increased entitlement programs (albeit with consent of a Republican-controlled Senate for 6 of 8 years) in exchange for the increases in defense spending.

  5. Phydeau says:

    #34 Riiiiiiiiight… those nice Republicans wanted to balance the budget, but those mean ol’ Democrats stopped them! Yeah, that’s the ticket, sure.

    And you’re giving credit to Reagan for stuff that happened four years after he left office???

    Wow.

  6. tcc3 says:

    Not just that Phydeau, but IIRC, there was a recession in there too. That’s some delayed reaction.

  7. Phydeau says:

    …hm, but now that I think about it, it does make sense, in a twisted wingnut way. Reagan was given credit for good things happening in the Clinton era. Clinton was blamed for the bad things happening in the Dubya era. And mere months after Dubya left office, Obama is being blamed for 8 years of Republican f*ckups. I got it:

    1. Anything good that happens during a Democratic administration is obviously because of some previous Republican administration.

    2. Anything bad that happens during a Democratic administration is in no way related to any previous Republican administration.

    3. Anything bad that happens during a Republican administration is obviously because of some previous Democratic administration.

    Makes perfect sense! To a wingnut, anyway. 🙂

  8. Shubee says:

    Clearly, Obama is a cowardly Bush clone when it comes to favoring Wall Street. I’m going to vote for Ralph Nader – again!

  9. deowll says:

    If she wins several people posting to this news group will have strokes so I guess for them the world really will end.

  10. amodedoma says:

    Hey, you guys might be on to something. I had exactly the same impression with Obama when he won the presidency. Oh shit, the end is near if they’re gonna let a black man be president. (not racist-just old)
    Sarah Palin’s about as offensive as a fart on a pig farm. Apart from being a republican with tits, I don’t see where she’s doing anything out of place for one of those.

  11. smartalix says:

    What I don’t get is the right-wing confusion with rhetoric. Don’t they understand complex concepts?

    Those that laugh at Palin do so because they find her stupid and amusing, not because htey fear her. She is dangerous, but not because she has any talents in that direction. She is dangerous because we’ve just recently gotten past an incompetent presidency, and have no desire to plunge into another one because the GOP needs another empty suit to front for the power brokers.

    Can you show me any language from any Palin despiser that shows fear? She could be any right-wing neo-fascist steath-racist poster child and get the same level of derision from me. Hell, Beck would be almost a better shot for her crown if he wasn’t mentally unstable to boot.

  12. chris says:

    I saw some promotional materials for her new show. The tag line is: “There’s always more on the Sarah Palin Show!”

  13. kscbear says:

    I think the Audio-Animatronics Ronald Reagan at the Walt Disney Hall of Presidents stands a better chance of winning than Sarah Palin. Oh, wait…that Reagan has already won… TWICE!! LOL

  14. Lol, that’s perfect.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19311 access attempts in the last 7 days.