It’s plain enough who the losers are in the Mark Sanford story: the governor, his family and loved ones. But there are winners too – the surviving GOP presidential candidates relieved of one more competitor in the crowded right edge of the party field. Who is likeliest to benefit?
Nominations are open. My guess: Gov. Sarah Palin.
Despite her advantages in opinion polls, Palin faces considerable obstacles en route to a GOP nomination.
1) It was Mitt Romney not Sarah Palin who came second in the 2008 contest – and the GOP has repeatedly turned next time to the candidate who finished second last time. (IE: John McCain finished second in 2000, Bob Dole finished second in 1988, George HW Bush finished second in 1980, Ronald Reagan finished second in 1976.)
2) Romney has already established an effective fund-raising and vote-mobilizing apparatus. Palin has to begin from zero.
3) Palin is prone to emotional mistakes, including her breach with Levi Johnston, father of her grandchild, and a man to keep inside the tent if there ever were one. (What do you bet that Johnston becames a national campaign correspondent for MTV or Comedy Central in 2012?)
Palin’s best hope is to quickly consolidate a conservative following and frame the choice as one between a “true conservative” and an unacceptably moderate Romney. Entry into the race by a Mike Huckabee, a Mark Sanford, a Newt Gingrich or a Bobby Jindal – each with their own credible conservative credentials – adds to the difficulty of her not-easy task. The fewer such entrants the better. Now there will be one fewer.
57 responses so far
1 TenorFabiano // Jun 24, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I think Pawlenty is the winner here, not Romney, not Palin, not Huckabee. Pawlenty is the winner because the other clear second tier candidate is now out and Pawlenty, to me seemed to be of the same more soft spoken conservative that Sanford was. The field now is Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty, and Gingrich. Thats about it unless Giuliani wins the Governorship in NY and relaunches into the Presidential Election.
2 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:32 am
Of course things could change but as of now Obama looks like a shoo in for 2012. This helps Palin in two ways. Firstly, as this most recent Pew poll shows she’s the darling of the base. Secondly, if Obama is carrying all before him most of the serious side of the GOP may just decide to sit it out. This in fact although they won’t acknowledge it is what effectively happened in 1964. Believe me there was absolutely no doubt in any one’s mind that LBJ was going to win the election long before any Republican was nominated. This made the whole Republican nominating process something of a charade because everyone knew what the outcome was going to be and so the mainstream Republican party gave the right at the time a mulligan. If Obama is in the same position three years from now I expect the same to happen again. Of course this also helps the Democrats both at the presidential and congressional levels but potentially in a much deeper way. But that’s a whole other story.
3 RLW // Jun 25, 2009 at 7:21 am
In response to 1), I think Mitt Romney as the default nominee for 2012–at least at the beginning–seems likely, especially in view of his strong economic credentials.
But the fact that Romney was never able to take a commanding lead, despite having good visibility and, at least, reasonable social conservative credentials, says much about at least one problem in the GOP. I think that social conservatives couldn’t get comfortable with him because of his Mormonism no matter how muted its details were.
But this discomfort with Romney (say in contrast with Huckabee) really worked against the interests of social conservatives. There has been a kind of creedal constraint on social conservatism that refuses to recognize ways of articulating socially conservative positions that don’t depend on theological premises, even if the former are wholly compatible with the later. There is now some debate about whether the GOP should moderate its positions on the most controversial of social issues. If the GOP wants to stay alive as a viable national party and not moderate its positions on these issues, it will need to find ways to present its support for issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. that *do not* just boil down to covert appeals to theology.
It should offer reasoned accounts of its positions that stand on starting points that anyone could accept–whether one is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, or of no faith tradition at all. There are many rationally viable and persuasive *conservative* accounts of these issues that can be made on non-theological grounds that are compatible with and comfortable to most faith traditions.
4 sinz54 // Jun 25, 2009 at 7:23 am
ottovbvs: The obvious reason why Sarah Palin is helped is that she’s a FEMALE.
In my memory, there has never been a case of a FEMALE politician caught cheating on her husband. That makes it highly unlikely she’ll be caught and humiliated like this.
Why is it only male politicians who cheat on their spouses? Henry Kissinger said that “Power is the best aphrodisiac.” It must be a male thing that being politically powerful increases libido. Women seek power too (like Hillary Clinton). But power doesn’t seem to make them horny the way it does to men.
5 sinz54 // Jun 25, 2009 at 7:29 am
RLW: It won’t matter what the GOP’s stand on social issues is.
Christian evangelicals won’t support Romney because they think Mormonism is a crackpot cult–and they are uneasy about electing a crackpot to the White House.
It’s the same reaction many Americans might have, if a national political party nominated a Raelian, who worship ancient space aliens and whose symbol is the swastika.
6 John // Jun 25, 2009 at 8:51 am
RLW: As a social conservative, let me be clear: Mitt Romney’s problems with social conservatives were that he flip-flopped so radically, quickly, and unconvincingly on abortion and (and trimmed his sails from his previous strong position in favor of gay rights, but that’s a different story). This led to understandable questions about his integrity and sincerity on these issues. (Even McCain always faced a bit of suspicion from some pro-lifers despite a 24-year record of being pro-life; Romney wanted pro-lifers to trust him only four years after running a strongly pro-choice campaign in 2002.)
Had Romney merely said, “this is who I am” about his very, very clear positions on both issues expressed in both 1994 and 2002, social conservatives would not have liked the positions, but more social conservatives would have had more respect for him. If we’re going to judge politicians on their records, it must be on their whole records. A bit unfair for Romney to ask everyone to forget his past stances which were so fervently held.
As to your point on “creedal constraint,” Nat Hentoff, for one, is an example of someone who’s praised for his pro-life views and work despite being an atheist. I agree that people like him should become more prominent as spokespeople for the pro-life movement.
This is one of many reasons why it’s so sad Jon Huntsman is presumably out for 2012: it would have shown that a pro-life Mormon gets respect among pro-lifers for being pro-life. Period.
7 barker13 // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:50 am
David Frum wrote…
“It’s plain enough who the losers are in the Mark Sanford story: the governor, his family and loved ones.”
Funny… for a guy who writes “it’s plain enough,” you missed the party most wounded by Sanford’s personal weakness: The American People.
Gov. Sanford is a true fiscal conservative. What hurts him hurts all of us who believe in fiscal discipline and a retrained federal government.
Oh my God… if only we could lock the governor up in the stocks – set it up in the middle of Columbia, SC along with live TV coverage – and allow all comers to pelt Governor Sanford with rotten fruit and vegetables for a solid 24 hours… and then consider the matter closed.
Obviously the “Bill Scenario” ain’t gonna take place.
(*SMIRK*) (More’s the pity.)
Jeezus… what a frigg’n jerk…!!! What a moron…!!! What a selfish, self-serving, irresponsible piece of…
(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)
All the good that Sanford could have done from national center stage… now a moot point.
Unfortunately for “pragmatism,” conservatives will hold Sanford to the same “moral/ethical” standard they held Clinton.
(And, no… as much as it would make a cute SNL skit… the Dem electorate won’t be MORE inclined to support Sanford BECAUSE he’s an adulterer.)
What a shame. What a crying shame.
BILL
8 WillyP // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:53 am
I’ve seen Mitt speak in person, and he was (as expected) intelligent, comprehensive, and articulate. But his speech lacked excitement! I know, it would be nice to have a low key, conservative president who would resist the temptation to meddle in every minor issue that inevitably crops up. However, does anyone think it’s likely that Americans, just 4 years after electing B. Hussein Obama, a “rock star” candidate, will elect a, well, boring technocrat? Don’t get me wrong, I like Mitt overall – his awful transgression re: MA healthcare notwithstanding. I just doubt he’d be the best candidate to harness the GOP energy that is building in response to Obama.
9 chephren // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:57 am
Please, Republicans, please nominate Sarah Palin in 2012. Please give this conniving panderer to the worst elements in the GOP the opportunity to lose spectacularly to a far better candidate.
Please give America the chance to question her about issues that were mostly glossed over last time around: her and her husband’s long association with fringe-right Alaskan separatists; her membership in Wasilla’s oddball fundamentalist church; her hypocritical love of federal pork dollars and extensive use of lobbyists to get it; the enormous tax increases she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska; her utter lack of experience with the hard budgetary realities faced by the 49 other states and the federal government; the vindictive, Nixonian way in which she habitually deals with political enemies; her profound lack of knowledge about the world; her acceptance and encouragement of extreme, nativist elements in the Republican base.
Please make Caribou Barbie your candidate. You will guarantee a 2nd presidential term and a bigger congressional majority for Democrats.
Oh, and while you’re at it, it’s about time you apologized for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The embarrassments of the past week prove – as if David Vitter and Larry Craig weren’t enough for you – that Republicans are no more moral or honest than Democrats. If anything, they are less so.
10 WillyP // Jun 25, 2009 at 10:21 am
chephren said “Please make Caribou Barbie your candidate. You will guarantee a 2nd presidential term and a bigger congressional majority for Democrats.”
I can only conclude that chephren is a self-loathing masochist.
11 balconesfault // Jun 25, 2009 at 10:46 am
God, this is silliness. There is sooo long to go, we might as well be trying to predict which NFL team will win the Super Bowl in 2012.
What is kind of unseemly is watching the preamble to the 2012 primaries unfold like a demolition derby. I can’t say that it is a good thing for our political process that every action taken by a high profile Republican these days gets hashed and rehashed as part of some horse race analysis. Doesn’t encourage good decision making, and is too likely to encourage counterproductive grandstanding.
12 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 11:28 am
balconesfault
wrote 36 minutes ago”God, this is silliness. There is sooo long to go, we might as well be trying to predict which NFL team will win the Super Bowl in 2012.’
…….Entirely true but it’s an entertaining parlor game and at the end of the day this blog like most blogs is largely in the entertainment business.
13 balconesfault // Jun 25, 2009 at 11:36 am
“Entirely true but it’s an entertaining parlor game and at the end of the day this blog like most blogs is largely in the entertainment business”
It is that, I suppose! Perhaps the next parlor game should be a bookie-service on which politician (let’s be bipartisan here!) is caught with his (hell – let’s not be sexist, either – or her) pants down.
14 Rosedale1 // Jun 25, 2009 at 11:54 am
It will be Romney. To respond to John: I am also a social conservative. 15 years in the pro life movement, I work for an Irish think which promotes marriage. Romney’s stance when he ran in Massachusetts(!!) shouldn’t be held against him, in my view.
Two reasons: 1 Ronald Reagan had similar, eh, lapses when he was governor. He signed a liberal abortion law in 1967. When Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill allowing embryonic stem cell research.
2. His aggressive courting of the pro life/pro family wing of the party would have meant that he would have owed much to those forces within the GOP. His colours nailed so firmly to that mast, he would have had no room to maneuver his way out of those commitments.
Romney perhaps lacks excitement, but he does bring deep credibility to the table when talking about substantive policy. One can argue that, against Obama’s star power, the GOP needs someone with the “celebrity appeal” of Palin.
But the shape of the next election will be determined to a large extent on whether Obama can ride out the economic squalls currently besetting the US.
If the problems continue, and his popularity continues to slide as he takes unwilling ownership of a sinking economy, then star power alone won’t save him from the onslaught of an articulate and capable alternative such as Romney.
If he manages to hang on until there are clear green shoots of recovery, then no GOP candidate has a hope, but one who has some mastery of facts and policy detail has a chance at restoring some of the GOP’s lost credibility.
In the second scenario, Romney would perform a function similar to the one Michael Howard played for the UK Tories in the 2005 general election; stop the bleeding and prepare the way for a comeback.
The fear would be that Palin would be William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith rolled into one; the party would not have any appeal outside its base, and would have to spend another 2-4 years rebuilding, while the Dems continue to mess things up.
15 goethean // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I am a Democrat. However, I think that the country is better off with a strong conservative party and a robust political debate. I hope that the Republicans do NOT nominate Palin, even though such a move would guarantee Democratic supremacy for the forseeable future. She is an ignorant, ranting, know-nothing bigot who does nothing but spout half-baked clichees. I would rather the Republicans nominate someone substantial, intelligent, and capable of leading a 21st century superpower.
16 groverge // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:26 pm
There is clearly a vast international conspiracy of women to clear the deck for Palin in 2012. Assuming that Romney is as impervious to come-ons as his hair is to water, does anyone know where Huckabee and Pawlenty hang out on weekends? And which poor soul drew the short straw and has to make eyes at Haley Barbour at the bar at the Beau Rivage in Biloxi?
17 Republitarian // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:45 pm
2012 Won’t have anything to do with the GOP candidate, and everything to do with Barack Obama. While my preference would be for Mitt in ‘12, if Obama is weighted down with a crippled economy in the fall of ‘12 (which is very likely), Sarah Palin will beat him – hell, the Easter Bunny could beat him.
If, however, the economy is only stagnate or marginally improved, Obama is unbeatable – barring of course, another terrorist attack on US soil. That too would be the ballgame for Obama.
18 Republitarian // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:03 pm
2012 Won’t have anything to do with the GOP candidate, and everything to do with Barack Obama. While my preference would be for Mitt in ‘12, if Obama is weighted down with a crippled economy in the fall of ‘12 (which is very likely), Sarah Palin will beat him – hell, the Easter Bunny could beat him.
If, however, the economy is only stagnate or marginally improved, Obama is unbeatable – barring of course, another terrorist attack on US soil. That too would be the ballgame for Obama.
19 BoolaBoola // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Trig Palin for President!
AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
20 midcon // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:18 pm
gothean sez: ” She is an ignorant, ranting, know-nothing bigot who does nothing but spout half-baked clichees.”
This really isn’t worlth my time to comment, but not being a Palin supporter I am at least a little unbiased.
While she may not be a Nobel Prize winner, she managed to know enough and have enough on the ball to get elected governor. How’s that compared with your achievements? She also has never exhibited any evidence that she is a bigot. Just because someone disagrees without your views doesn’t make them a bigot. Did you just pull that insult out of one of your orfices? Finally, how about you provide one of the “half -baked clichees” she spouted or did you get that insult from the same place you got the “bigot” one?
Regardless of whatever Sarah Palin is, she appears to be a decent mother and parent to her children and a competent chief executive of a state. That puts her achievements far above mine and I bet above yours. Now you add in her ability to field dress a moose and there is no contest between you and Palin. I suggest you stick to your own league because you couldn’t carry her water!
And I repeat I am not a Palin supporter.
21 barker13 // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Re: Balconesfault; 10:46 AM –
Balc. It’s red meat to the morons.
I can imagine these people’s ancestors in ancient Rome trying to buy tickets to Nero’s fiddling concert while their City burned.
(*SNORT*)
Seriously… it’s Pavlovian.
(Oh… and to add insult to injury… to depress you further… the type of folks who blog at sites like this are the relative cream of the crop of “politically aware” voters.)
This country is doomed.
BILL
22 balconesfault // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Well, maybe Sanford isn’t “out of it”.
Per Rush today, apparently any Republicans who do anything wrong are exempt from “personal responsibility” that he so often talks about – because Obama made them do it.
“This is almost like, ‘I don’t give a damn, the country’s going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here, Sanford] had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn’t want any part of it; he lost the battle. He said, ‘What the hell. I mean,
the federal government’s taking over — what the hell, I want to enjoy life.’ “
Can we blame Sanford? Or Ensign? Or whatever future Republican is found to be acting badly out of despair?
23 krove // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Mittens is unelectable in a national election. The magic underpants get in the way. Plus the Mr Goodhair image turns a lot of people off.
Please let it be Palin in 2012, she has enough baggage to fill a 747 hold several times over.
If the rest of the 2012 hopefuls go the way of Sandford and Ensign it might be a re run with McCain. After all he only left his first wife and cheated on her because she was disfigured in an accident. Yet another family values Republican.
24 Cforchange // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Hmmm, I kinda agree with Barker. That’s wierd.
25 MOswingvoter // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“It was Mitt Romney not Sarah Palin who came second in the 2008 contest”
Ummmmm actually, it was Huck who came in second in the 2008 contest. Nice try, though.
26 krove // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:40 pm
It gets worse…….
Sanford will reimburse for government trip
From his press office:
“As noted by the Department of Commerce, I attended a trade mission with the Department of Commerce last June. As the agenda notes, the mission was spent meeting with government and private business officials in both Brazil and Argentina. This trip was handled very professionally by the Department of Commerce, and I’m proud of their work there.
“However, while the purpose of this trip was an entirely professional and appropriate business development trip, I made a mistake while I was there in meeting with the woman who I was unfaithful to my wife with. That has raised some very legitimate concerns and questions, and as such I am going to reimburse the state for the full cost of the Argentina leg of this trip,” Gov. Sanford said
27 MOswingvoter // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“It was Mitt Romney not Sarah Palin who came second in the 2008 contest”
Ummmmm actually, it was Huck who came in second in the 2008 contest. Nice try, though.
28 MOswingvoter // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm
sorry for the double post, i’m new here.
29 dendup // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
barker “This country is doomed.”
No more than it was last week, or a year ago, or 200 years ago, or 11,000 years ago.
Get a grip man.
SLAP IN THE FACE.
(Thanks I needed that.)
It’s OK.
REASSURING SMILE
Self destruction is what has made this country great. I mean come on – let’s build a house divided against itself?
Creative destruction, innovation, adulterous rambling,politicians. It’s all of a piece.
INCHES FROM YOUR FACE
Don’t go soft on us now!!!!!
We have nothing to fear but taxes!!!
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what government programs we can cut!!!
WINK
In the end, we all die anyway….
30 mzalia // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:06 pm
My guess is that Sister Sarah Palin would be good if you like her faith style. If you prefer dogmatic anti-people faith experiences you will likely prefer an Indonesian Islamic.
I know that Sister Sarah would be good for Americans, not nercessarily citizens of other countries.
31 balconesfault // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:08 pm
MOswingvoter – just jump out of the thread and come back before you refresh to read followups. For some reason refreshing double posts.
dendup – well done. got the style just right.
krove – I’m inclined to agree with you on things, but could you dial it back down below 10?
barker – on the “doomed country” – unlike you, I actually believe in bureaucrats. They’re kind of like ballast in a boat – they might slow you down, but they come in handy when winds or waves want to tip you over. Of course, too much will make you sink.
32 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm
balconesfault
11:36 AM
It is that, I suppose! Perhaps the next parlor game should be a bookie-service on which politician (let’s be bipartisan here!) is caught with his (hell – let’s not be sexist, either – or her) pants down.
………..I’d be less than human if I didn’t confess to a mild desire to catch La Sarah with her pants down….She’s a total bimbette but in those circumstances who cares……I promise to attend 200 political correctness classes after that remark.
33 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:14 pm
barker13
wrote 49 minutes ago
“This country is doomed”
……..I lived in Britain for a while in the seventies and there was a rather gaunt Scottish actor called John Laurie whose shtick was to glare at the TV camera and assert “Weeerrrrrrrrrr allllllllllllll dooooooomed.” You’re obviously related.
34 KL7212 // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“… rather gaunt Scottish actor called John Laurie…”.
…who also starred in such British film classics as The 39 Steps, The Four Feathers, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, Henry V, and I Know Where I’m Going!
35 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:29 pm
KL7212
wrote 47 minutes ago
……..And the immortal Dad’s Army which was a big number in Britain back then…..Hilarious……Don’t panic Mr Mannering!
36 SFTor // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Sorry to mention this, but can you get any more EMBARRASSING than this guy?
Scooting off without telling anyone, well except that your wife knows full well of course? No hand-off of power? Speaking about at a press conference about how he “cried for five days in Argentina?” The emails? Can you drag your wife any deeper through the mud than that? Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the good of the GOP, this guy needs to disappear and never be heard from again. I’m saying this, and I’m a liberal.
37 SFTor // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:15 pm
The idea that Sarah Palin is a viable candidate has been disproved as far as I can tell. She seems to energize the base and lose the middle. That’s one for the L column.
38 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:19 pm
SFTor
wrote 3 minutes agoThe idea that Sarah Palin is a viable candidate has been disproved as far as I can tell
…..She’s very sexy though…..gets all the gun lovers adrenaline flowing………
39 midcon // Jun 25, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Actually Sarah Palin energizes more than the base. Her relative unsophistication is attractive to those who are tired of the elitism that passes for our representatives and other leaders these days. People respond to a populist and she shops at Wal Mart like the rest of America. There is a great deal of disatisfaction in America with the privileged few who affect the lives of the many with nary a thought to what happens to those lives.
40 SFTor // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:21 pm
otto: you naughty boy.
midcon: there’s elitism, and there’s competence.
Sarah Palin may be a MILF, but she is incompetent to run the country. Once in the voting booth most people will make the distinction. Cooler heads will prevail, if you know what I mean.
41 sinz54 // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:46 pm
WillyP asks: “However, does anyone think it’s likely that Americans, just 4 years after electing B. Hussein Obama, a “rock star” candidate, will elect a, well, boring technocrat?”
The next two elections are Obama’s to lose.
If he does a decent job, no Republican can beat him.
If he flops, then the public will definitely be looking for something other than another “young rock star.” All of a sudden, “the wisdom and experience of age” will suddenly come back into vogue.
42 sinz54 // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:59 pm
midcon: There’s a difference between being unsophisticated and being ignorant.
I don’t mind Sarah Palin’s small-town upbringing and her frontier airs, not at all.
What I did mind is that when she was asked a straight question about Iran, or North Korea, or the economy, or health care, or any other major issue, she couldn’t answer it unless it fit a talking-point she had memorized like it was in a foreign language. Any of us here on NM have our own opinions on all those topics. What the heck are Sarah Palin’s?
If she wants to be taken seriously, she has to develop her OWN vision of economics, international affairs, etc.
Having said that, I stand by my earlier point: She is unlikely to be cheating on her spouse. And these days, that’s a plus.
43 midcon // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:30 pm
sinz; Agreed, she is not knowledgeable regarding foreign affairs, health care and other areas that are critical our leadership. I do not think she is ready to be President and perahps never will be. She needs lots more experience. On the other hand, a thin resume is not an obstacle to the White House.
Again agreed, as you say – if she wants to be taken seriously, she has to develop her own vision. My guess is she is intelligent enough to know that and spending some of her free time as a student.
We will have to see what she becomes. For now, she is a work in progress, with the added benefit of being unlikely to cheat on her spouse.
44 Chrisc23 // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The three candidates I think are best for 2012:
1) Congressman Leonard Lance (R) NJ
2) Leonard Lance (R) NJ
3) Leonard Lance (R) NJ
He is brilliant. He is well respected by both sides. And he is a Republican.
45 Cforchange // Jun 26, 2009 at 3:52 am
Palin is not electable. Double yawn here.
I know little about L Lance and why not because his geography precludes him from any discussion regarding the “short list.”
Why is that? Lacking voters from the North East is no surprise…
Sanford and his use of the public vehicle for this trip is now trumped by the Brazilian trip he charged to the taxpayers previously. So there is little valor on all fronts.
Maybe the only solution is the Independent party to take the majority and clean house.
46 balconesfault // Jun 26, 2009 at 5:18 am
“Maybe the only solution is the Independent party to take the majority and clean house.”
What is ironic is that if a public option for healthcare fails, the Democratic Party might split before the Republicans do.
47 Amorak // Jun 26, 2009 at 6:15 am
Not good when you boil down our right wing soup and all that’s left, um, right, is Sarah Palin!
48 barker13 // Jun 26, 2009 at 6:27 am
Re: Cforchange; 1:27 PM –
“Hmmm, I kinda agree with Barker. That’s wierd.”
(*GRIN*) Hard not to, CfC, considering I’m right. (*WINK*)
Have you checked out the latest thread posted by “The Editors of NM?”
(*SNORT*)
How can you not have contempt for these clowns…???
Re: Dendup; 1:49 PM –
OUTSTANDING! (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) (*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)
Still… when all’s said and done… we really are doomed, Dendup. Avert your gaze if you must, but the stats are the stats.
Except perhaps for a military coup (which ain’t gonna happen – not for decades, if ever) nothing can save this once great nation from what the politicians have done to it.
Maybe those “militia types” up in Montana have the right idea…
(*SHRUG*) (*SNORT*)
BILL
* Hey… I’ve specifically outlined my scenarios – along with my reasoning – several times. Anyone who cares to advance a scenario where the U.S. grows militarily, economically, socially stronger and more cohesive relative to the rest of the world… be my guest.
** Seriously. Explain how our debts and especially our unfunded future liabilities (which Obama and the Dems are busy expanding) will simply take care of themselves. Honor us with your theories concerning how the deindustrialization of America is nothing to worry about.
49 ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 6:52 am
SFTor
5:21 PMotto: you naughty boy
……Would you like sin on a moose skin
with Sarah Pa-lin.
……Or would you rather err with her
on some other fur.
50 ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 6:55 am
midcon
6:30 PM
“sinz; Agreed, she is not knowledgeable regarding foreign affairs, health care and other areas that are critical our leadership.”
………She’s as thick as a post…….Stupidity is not alas curable.
51 ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 6:59 am
barker13
wrote 28 minutes ago
“** Seriously. Explain how our debts and especially our unfunded future liabilities (which Obama and the Dems are busy expanding) will simply take care of themselves. Honor us with your theories concerning how the deindustrialization of America is nothing to worry about.”
…….The public debt while a growing problem is actually much smaller as a percentage of GDP than it was in 1945, so it’s by no means unmanageable if the will exists.
……You are however correct about the deindustrialization of America…..it’s a major structural problem……however don’t I remember you railing against plans to rescue the US auto industry.
52 KL7212 // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:18 am
>>Actually Sarah Palin energizes more than the base. Her relative unsophistication is attractive to those who are tired of the elitism that passes for our representatives and other leaders these days. People respond to a populist and she shops at Wal Mart like the rest of America.
Sorry, but in my rather dismal moderate-conservative view of the world, I’d rather have the “elites” running things. I’d rather have brilliant guys like Barack Obama or Bobby Jindal in charge of the show than a spoiled, overprivileged, intellectual mediocrity like George W. Bush.
The last eight years has soured me on the GOP’s phony populism. I’m tired of elitist twits like Mitt Romney who think that they can become “men of the people” simply by exchanging their $3000 suits for cowboy hats and work overalls. I’m sick of multi-millionaires like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham spouting off about “elites” while living pampered lives in East Coast cities.
53 KL7212 // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:23 am
Besides, why are we talking about 2012 anyway?
3 years is a political lifetime. We have no idea what we’ll be facing on the ground in 6 months, let alone 2 or 3 years from now…
54 balconesfault // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:25 am
“Sorry, but in my rather dismal moderate-conservative view of the world, I’d rather have the “elites” running things. “
I like Jon Stewart’s take on it:
“You know what, candidates? I know elite is a bad word in politics. You want to go bowling and throw back a few beers. But the job you’re applying for, if you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain! If you don’t actually think you’re better than us, then what the [expletive] are you doing? “
55 Cforchange // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:27 am
KL – and shopping at Wal Mart is part of the problem…. No skill low pay jobs selling junk for cheap that we don’t even make. Oh but they give you a smock so if you start drooling, you’re covered.
But the one thing I’m thankful for regarding WM, thank goodness they dropped that ugly grey/ navy adopting the more environ appealing camo tan store color. Maybe soon we won’t even know we’re shopping there.
56 ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:25 am
balconesfault
wrote 49 minutes ago”Sorry, but in my rather dismal moderate-conservative view of the world, I’d rather have the “elites” running things. “
…….Somehow I think most people would prefer that elite surgeon taking their appendix out rather than Joe the plumber…….One of the Republican party’s besetting sins of late is their hypocrisy over elitism and intellectualism……They practice elitism themselves but spend endless hours accusing their opponents of it…..the result schizophrenia and incompetence.
…….In practice most people want elitism…….A good example is the British Royal Navy in the age of fighting sail….popular wisdom would have you believe the only reason seamen obeyed orders and followed their officers was fear of the lash…….well as anyone who has done any sailing will tell you in force 6 these British seaman wanted the guys on the quarter deck to be elitists who knew what they were doing.
57 Sarah Palin y el Partido Republicano (III). El futuro de Palin « Sarah Palin en Español // Jul 21, 2009 at 6:02 pm
[...] no está de acuerdo con Acereda. Él quiere más figurines. Y así, comentaba en su página NewMajority.com el 25 de junio que la gran beneficiada de la caída en desgracia de Mark Sanford era la propia [...]
You must log in to post a comment.