In a Republican Primary Palin will enter have decent support among social conversatives in Iowa. She would have to finish in top three to move on from there. The question will be how much money she can raise. If the tea party canidates she endorsed do well in November then she would have momentum going into 2011 to raise money and prepare for a run. I think she waits to see who else jumps into the pool. Romney pretty much is a given. Newt looks like he's gonna give it a shot. Business community likely backs Romney and neo-cons back Newt. Social conservatives may back Huckabee with Tea party supporters going for Palin. If Huckabee doesn't run then that opens up things for Palin to grab the Huckabee supporters. Both Palin and Huck likely split up each others vote if both run. In a three way race it would split things up where she might have a chance if she can hold the social conservative and tea party vote.

(10-08-2010 02:13 PM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  In a Republican Primary Palin will enter have decent support among social conversatives in Iowa. She would have to finish in top three to move on from there. The question will be how much money she can raise. If the tea party canidates she endorsed do well in November then she would have momentum going into 2011 to raise money and prepare for a run. I think she waits to see who else jumps into the pool. Romney pretty much is a given. Newt looks like he's gonna give it a shot. Business community likely backs Romney and neo-cons back Newt. Social conservatives may back Huckabee with Tea party supporters going for Palin. If Huckabee doesn't run then that opens up things for Palin to grab the Huckabee supporters. Both Palin and Huck likely split up each others vote if both run. In a three way race it would split things up where she might have a chance if she can hold the social conservative and tea party vote.

It aint happening. Her negative polling numbers are astronomical for somebody who hasn't held federal office. She's doing Dubya level bad.

Even as a 100% pissed off voter, I'll take the Devil I Know unless the GOP puts forth a decent candidate. The only GOPhers I see myself backing would be Huckabee, Romney, or Jeb. I might consider Newt. But if you decide to go Parahsailin, I'll just go with Barry again.

(10-07-2010 12:45 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  I think Palin has kind of relegated herself to being an organizer/spokesman. Her viability as a candidate is weak at best.

Never doubt the ability of Iowa caucus goers to screw up anything.

The advantage Palin has is that she has instant name recognition that few outside of Romney, Rudy, Huck and Newt have in the early primaries. Someone like Daniels and Pawlenty are still unknown to voters. Palin has been fully vetted by the media by now. That is an advantage too. If she runs the TV cameras will be rolling. Gonna be hard for the others to get any TV time as the networks would be covering Palin like Hillary/Obama were covered. Challange will be for the other canidates to get their message accross to voters with the focus on Palin.

(10-08-2010 03:34 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Even as a 100% pissed off voter, I'll take the Devil I Know unless the GOP puts forth a decent candidate. The only GOPhers I see myself backing would be Huckabee, Romney, or Jeb. I might consider Newt. But if you decide to go Parahsailin, I'll just go with Barry again.

(10-07-2010 12:45 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  I think Palin has kind of relegated herself to being an organizer/spokesman. Her viability as a candidate is weak at best.

Never doubt the ability of Iowa caucus goers to screw up anything.

You'd back Huck, Mitt, or Jeb, but you could vote for Obama???

I just can't understand that reasoning.

The woman missing from the list is Hillary. Barry won't be running.

(10-08-2010 10:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-08-2010 03:34 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Even as a 100% pissed off voter, I'll take the Devil I Know unless the GOP puts forth a decent candidate. The only GOPhers I see myself backing would be Huckabee, Romney, or Jeb. I might consider Newt. But if you decide to go Parahsailin, I'll just go with Barry again.

(10-07-2010 12:45 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  I think Palin has kind of relegated herself to being an organizer/spokesman. Her viability as a candidate is weak at best.

Never doubt the ability of Iowa caucus goers to screw up anything.

You'd back Huck, Mitt, or Jeb, but you could vote for Obama???

I just can't understand that reasoning.

I see my original statement was poorly written. For clarification's sake, what I meant is that I will vote for Barack if Sarah Palin is the nominee. I didn't mean to say I'd vote for him otherwise, but I might if the GOP puts forth someone I am not convinced would be an improvement. And I do not hold the view that anyone but Barack would be an improvement, because there will be a GOP Congress to reign in Obama. I'd be hard pressed to think of anything that Obama could do that would cause me to vote for Palin. Palin actually is as stupid and uninformed as most liberals thought GWB was, she's unqualified (which doesn't mean Barack was qualified), and her resigning mid-term speaks very poorly of her character. If she had governed throughout her term and done a good job governing, then maybe, maybe, maybe I'd consider her. But when she resigned mid-term by saying something about dead fish floating down a river, I decided 100% that she's a flake that doesn't have a clue and doesn't begin to have the brains or character to be president. In other words, she decided to be a TV hound and diva queen instead of showing herself to be a responsible political leader. And I think that speaks very loudly about her qualification (lack thereof) to be president.

On the others that I mentioned...I lived in Arkansas when Huckabee was Governor, and I was a big supporter of his. He was a very effective Governor. He manages to be conservative without being ideological on every issue. That's really what I despise -- politicians that let ideology get in the way of good policy. GWB did that too much imho, but Huck doesn't. He'd probably be my preference from the GOP stable.

Jeb is a bit too conservative on certain areas for me, such as when he privatized Florida's social services, which has proven to be a complete failure. The thing about Jeb is, that unlike his brother, he is very interested in the details. As Governor, he received a weekly briefing directly from subject area analysts on their respective subjects. He never made a decision on which he was not thoroughly informed, so while I disagree with him, I know that he is making an informed decision and is highly competent. At the same time, while it seems contrary, I felt like at times he let his ideology run decisions - e.g., privatizing social services. But I don't think Jeb is going to run, so it's probably not an issue.

And Romney is y'know, Romney. He's kind of boring, he has shiny teeth and awesome hair. And he's well qualified. He also, in my view, manages to be conservative without being overly ideological.

As to the others on the list - I'd like to see a # of Ron Paul's policies adopted, but I'm not convinced I'd want Ron Paul to actually be president. As to the others, I'd have to see platforms and see their campaigns. Would I vote for a conservative suit like Mitch Daniels? Maybe. But one thing is for sure - I will not vote for Sarah Palin, which is what I said originally.

(10-09-2010 05:34 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-08-2010 10:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You'd back Huck, Mitt, or Jeb, but you could vote for Obama???
I just can't understand that reasoning.

I see my original statement was poorly written. For clarification's sake, what I meant is that I will vote for Barack if Sarah Palin is the nominee. I didn't mean to say I'd vote for him otherwise, but I might if the GOP puts forth someone I am not convinced would be an improvement. And I do not hold the view that anyone but Barack would be an improvement, because there will be a GOP Congress to reign in Obama. I'd be hard pressed to think of anything that Obama could do that would cause me to vote for Palin. Palin actually is as stupid and uninformed as most liberals thought GWB was, she's unqualified (which doesn't mean Barack was qualified), and her resigning mid-term speaks very poorly of her character. If she had governed throughout her term and done a good job governing, then maybe, maybe, maybe I'd consider her. But when she resigned mid-term by saying something about dead fish floating down a river, I decided 100% that she's a flake that doesn't have a clue and doesn't begin to have the brains or character to be president. In other words, she decided to be a TV hound and diva queen instead of showing herself to be a responsible political leader. And I think that speaks very loudly about her qualification (lack thereof) to be president.
On the others that I mentioned...I lived in Arkansas when Huckabee was Governor, and I was a big supporter of his. He was a very effective Governor. He manages to be conservative without being ideological on every issue. That's really what I despise -- politicians that let ideology get in the way of good policy. GWB did that too much imho, but Huck doesn't. He'd probably be my preference from the GOP stable.
Jeb is a bit too conservative on certain areas for me, such as when he privatized Florida's social services, which has proven to be a complete failure. The thing about Jeb is, that unlike his brother, he is very interested in the details. As Governor, he received a weekly briefing directly from subject area analysts on their respective subjects. He never made a decision on which he was not thoroughly informed, so while I disagree with him, I know that he is making an informed decision and is highly competent. At the same time, while it seems contrary, I felt like at times he let his ideology run decisions - e.g., privatizing social services. But I don't think Jeb is going to run, so it's probably not an issue.
And Romney is y'know, Romney. He's kind of boring, he has shiny teeth and awesome hair. And he's well qualified. He also, in my view, manages to be conservative without being overly ideological.
As to the others on the list - I'd like to see a # of Ron Paul's policies adopted, but I'm not convinced I'd want Ron Paul to actually be president. As to the others, I'd have to see platforms and see their campaigns. Would I vote for a conservative suit like Mitch Daniels? Maybe. But one thing is for sure - I will not vote for Sarah Palin, which is what I said originally.

OK, I understand.

If forced to choose between Palin and Obama, I'd vote Palin. I think that a lot of what we "know" about her is not actually true, but she was so badly handled by the McCain people that she's probably not salvageable as a national candidate.

If forced to choose between Stalin and Obama, I'd have a hard time. Stalin's big advantage would be that he's dead, so he could probably do less harm. I simply see no possibility that Obama has done, or could ever do, anything useful.

(10-09-2010 05:34 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-08-2010 10:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-08-2010 03:34 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Even as a 100% pissed off voter, I'll take the Devil I Know unless the GOP puts forth a decent candidate. The only GOPhers I see myself backing would be Huckabee, Romney, or Jeb. I might consider Newt. But if you decide to go Parahsailin, I'll just go with Barry again.

(10-07-2010 12:45 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  I think Palin has kind of relegated herself to being an organizer/spokesman. Her viability as a candidate is weak at best.

Never doubt the ability of Iowa caucus goers to screw up anything.

You'd back Huck, Mitt, or Jeb, but you could vote for Obama???

I just can't understand that reasoning.

I see my original statement was poorly written. For clarification's sake, what I meant is that I will vote for Barack if Sarah Palin is the nominee. I didn't mean to say I'd vote for him otherwise, but I might if the GOP puts forth someone I am not convinced would be an improvement. And I do not hold the view that anyone but Barack would be an improvement, because there will be a GOP Congress to reign in Obama. I'd be hard pressed to think of anything that Obama could do that would cause me to vote for Palin. Palin actually is as stupid and uninformed as most liberals thought GWB was, she's unqualified (which doesn't mean Barack was qualified), and her resigning mid-term speaks very poorly of her character. If she had governed throughout her term and done a good job governing, then maybe, maybe, maybe I'd consider her. But when she resigned mid-term by saying something about dead fish floating down a river, I decided 100% that she's a flake that doesn't have a clue and doesn't begin to have the brains or character to be president. In other words, she decided to be a TV hound and diva queen instead of showing herself to be a responsible political leader. And I think that speaks very loudly about her qualification (lack thereof) to be president.

On the others that I mentioned...I lived in Arkansas when Huckabee was Governor, and I was a big supporter of his. He was a very effective Governor. He manages to be conservative without being ideological on every issue. That's really what I despise -- politicians that let ideology get in the way of good policy. GWB did that too much imho, but Huck doesn't. He'd probably be my preference from the GOP stable.

Jeb is a bit too conservative on certain areas for me, such as when he privatized Florida's social services, which has proven to be a complete failure. The thing about Jeb is, that unlike his brother, he is very interested in the details. As Governor, he received a weekly briefing directly from subject area analysts on their respective subjects. He never made a decision on which he was not thoroughly informed, so while I disagree with him, I know that he is making an informed decision and is highly competent. At the same time, while it seems contrary, I felt like at times he let his ideology run decisions - e.g., privatizing social services. But I don't think Jeb is going to run, so it's probably not an issue.

And Romney is y'know, Romney. He's kind of boring, he has shiny teeth and awesome hair. And he's well qualified. He also, in my view, manages to be conservative without being overly ideological.

As to the others on the list - I'd like to see a # of Ron Paul's policies adopted, but I'm not convinced I'd want Ron Paul to actually be president. As to the others, I'd have to see platforms and see their campaigns. Would I vote for a conservative suit like Mitch Daniels? Maybe. But one thing is for sure - I will not vote for Sarah Palin, which is what I said originally.

You know, I'm taken aback by that viscous attack on Palin. All these candidates have baggage. They are human, you know? Your characterization are slanted, like liberal talking points. She is a great organizer. She quit as Governor because she was being attacked, ran out of money, and felt it was best for the state. And even though there may be problems with those explanations, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

You cannot discount the power of the president even if the congress is of the other party. Just look what happened with Bush and a democratic congress. You cannot on that saving the country.

Just one question. Between Obama and Palin, who would be better for your pocketbook?

(10-09-2010 08:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Just one question. Between Obama and Palin, who would be better for your pocketbook?

Palin...I'm in a higher tax bracket. But I've never once voted based on my pecuniary interest, and I'm not about to start. I was raised to believe that the good of the country was more important than what was best for me, and I believe Palin would be an unmitigated disaster that would make us all wish for Obama to return. The GOP Congress largely reigned in Clinton, and I think they will do that to Obama as well. The only problem I see with that is that I don't believe any of the present GOP leaders are as bright as Newt. But then again, Obama is not as bright as Clinton.

I don't even think Palin's organization skills should be lauded at this point. She's successfully used her celebrity to be sure, but I don't think she gets credit for the Tea Party's organizational success in turning out voters -- her endorsement gets her followers out there, but I won't be impressed with her organizational skills until she uses them to win the Iowa Caucus.

(10-09-2010 08:52 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 08:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Just one question. Between Obama and Palin, who would be better for your pocketbook?

Palin...I'm in a higher tax bracket. But I've never once voted based on my pecuniary interest, and I'm not about to start. I was raised to believe that the good of the country was more important than what was best for me, and I believe Palin would be an unmitigated disaster that would make us all wish for Obama to return. The GOP Congress largely reigned in Clinton, and I think they will do that to Obama as well. The only problem I see with that is that I don't believe any of the present GOP leaders are as bright as Newt. But then again, Obama is not as bright as Clinton.

I don't even think Palin's organization skills should be lauded at this point. She's successfully used her celebrity to be sure, but I don't think she gets credit for the Tea Party's organizational success in turning out voters -- her endorsement gets her followers out there, but I won't be impressed with her organizational skills until she uses them to win the Iowa Caucus.

The instant she glommed on to the Tea Party movement...my interest in it declined. I'm just not impressed with this broad. I do not vote for anyone that I disapprove of and often just leave a ballot blank in races in which I do not like either candidate. I could not cast a ballot for either of these people.

(10-09-2010 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If forced to choose between Palin and Obama, I'd vote Palin. I think that a lot of what we "know" about her is not actually true, but she was so badly handled by the McCain people that she's probably not salvageable as a national candidate.

There's probably some validity to that...she's probably more defined nationally by Tina Fey than by herself. But even if we rollback the "I can see Russia from my house" type of remarks that Tina Fey made, I still don't think there's much there. A half-term Governor of a sparsely populated state that gets a ton of Federal money for its budget and who during the campaign was not the least bit familiar with any national or international issues. She wasn't just poorly handled by the McCain people (they muzzled her); she also stuck her foot in her mouth repeatedly (e.g., Katie Couric interview).

Basically ask yourself this - is the mayor of a small town who has been Governor of Wyoming (or Delaware for a Democrat) for two years qualified to be president? Just a generic candidate. I think most people would say that he's not. All Palin's got going for her is her cult of personality with a chunk of the right-wing base. And I don't think that qualifies someone to be president.

(10-09-2010 09:06 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  A half-term Governor of a sparsely populated state that gets a ton of Federal money for its budget

and gets "a ton" of land taken by Federal power. Here's a modest proposal: Alaska gets all of its land back, and the rest of us don't have any of our tax-$ sent that way anymore. Alaskans support that deal 99-1. If it doesn't happen, blame the Lower 48.

(10-09-2010 08:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  She quit as Governor because she was being attacked, ran out of money, and felt it was best for the state. And even though there may be problems with those explanations, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

That right there completely disqualifies her for the presidency in my mind (among the hundreds of other reasons I have). If your state is better off without you leading them, you have NO place in national politics. And you quit cause you're being attacked? What do you think the presidency is? An episode of "This is your Life"? Both of those are valid reasons to quit. Both are also immediate disqualifiers if you want to be a national leader.

(10-09-2010 08:52 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 08:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Just one question. Between Obama and Palin, who would be better for your pocketbook?

Palin...I'm in a higher tax bracket. But I've never once voted based on my pecuniary interest, and I'm not about to start. I was raised to believe that the good of the country was more important than what was best for me, and I believe Palin would be an unmitigated disaster that would make us all wish for Obama to return. The GOP Congress largely reigned in Clinton, and I think they will do that to Obama as well. The only problem I see with that is that I don't believe any of the present GOP leaders are as bright as Newt. But then again, Obama is not as bright as Clinton.

I don't even think Palin's organization skills should be lauded at this point. She's successfully used her celebrity to be sure, but I don't think she gets credit for the Tea Party's organizational success in turning out voters -- her endorsement gets her followers out there, but I won't be impressed with her organizational skills until she uses them to win the Iowa Caucus.

What makes YOU richer, is good for the country. Why do you hate her so much?

(10-09-2010 09:06 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-09-2010 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If forced to choose between Palin and Obama, I'd vote Palin. I think that a lot of what we "know" about her is not actually true, but she was so badly handled by the McCain people that she's probably not salvageable as a national candidate.

There's probably some validity to that...she's probably more defined nationally by Tina Fey than by herself. But even if we rollback the "I can see Russia from my house" type of remarks that Tina Fey made, I still don't think there's much there. A half-term Governor of a sparsely populated state that gets a ton of Federal money for its budget and who during the campaign was not the least bit familiar with any national or international issues. She wasn't just poorly handled by the McCain people (they muzzled her); she also stuck her foot in her mouth repeatedly (e.g., Katie Couric interview).

Basically ask yourself this - is the mayor of a small town who has been Governor of Wyoming (or Delaware for a Democrat) for two years qualified to be president? Just a generic candidate. I think most people would say that he's not. All Palin's got going for her is her cult of personality with a chunk of the right-wing base. And I don't think that qualifies someone to be president.

How about you tell us how that stupid f'n, present-voting Kenyan from Chicago was even remotely qualified for the office?