• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin 'becoming Al Sharpton'?

Romney - I consider him a moderate. He's traditionally been relatively liberal on social issues (although he doesn't seem to care about them), supportive of health care reform, and pro-business. On foreign policy, he echoes a lot of George Bush's ideas, although without the swagger and arrogance that would likely lead us into another ill-conceived war. He's mostly supported by upper-class, educated, urban, moderate Republicans.

Pawlenty - Ever since he waded into a possible presidential run, I think he's been trying to position himself as the generic Republican who toes the party line and doesn't piss anyone off. I think that strategy is unlikely to work, but it is what it is. Although he hasn't taken strong stances on much of anything, I would describe him as a "big government conservative." He'll probably appeal to the few people who don't like any of the other Republican candidates. Not a winning strategy IMO.

Daniels - Although not a libertarian by any means, Mitch Daniels is probably the closest thing to a small-government conservative among the serious contenders. As a governor, he has been a big proponent of busting unions and cutting spending. He's asked for a "truce" on social issues, which I interpret as an indication that he's moderate-to-liberal on them. He has shown little interest in foreign policy, indicating that he may be more supportive of a moderate approach than he lets on. I think he appeals to well-educated conservatives.

Huckabee - Mike Huckabee tends to be the most overtly religious candidate in the race, and wears his Christianity on his sleeve. He's plainly a social conservative, but has sharp disagreements with the Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy. He described Bush's foreign policy as "arrogant" way back in 2007, even before it was cool for Republicans to do that. On economic issues, I think he's a moderate populist who probably fits into the "big government conservative" category as well. I think he'll mainly appeal to evangelical Christians and rural Republicans.

Palin - She's the populist of the crowd, constantly attacking bureaucrats, bankers, and the elite. She favors an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative social agenda, and lower taxes. It's unclear if she has any plans to cut spending. I think she appeals mainly to the low-income, uneducated subset of Republicans.

Brilliant, Kandahar! Thank you so much. I'd never really heard of Pawlenty or Daniels before. I'm interested that there doesn't seem to be an all-out small-government libertarian-type. Is there one on the horizon? Or has the popular, mainstream Right kind of dispensed entirely with the idea of small government?
 
Ya, but keep in mind that there was a laundry list of reasons why each of the potential Republican nominees in 2008 was unacceptable to the base. And they were, to some extent. But the problem with this reasoning overlooks the obvious fact that SOMEONE will win the nomination.
Of course someone will. I'm merely giving a "March 2011" POV from a conservative stance using the 2010 elections as a guide based on the rise of the tea party mentality driving conservatives to the polls. Cept Huckabee, that smarmy SOB can go suck an egg.

Romney has the albatross of being a Mass. Gov that instituted a big government healthcare system.

Pawlenty is a warmer, a big government can save the earth type that looks to Jimmy Carter for wisdom... that's gonna haunt him in the primaries.

Daniels really says a lot of good things but his Indiana plan is gonna be a tough thing to over come.

Palin probably won't even run and if she does it's unlikely she'd win. The media did a bang up job of destroying her, so now it's impossible ot have an honest discussion about her. She isn't perfect, but she's not the bumbling hick moron that so many claim she is.


I think it's gonna be a dark horse, someone no one is really talking about right now.
 
Romney - I consider him a moderate. He's traditionally been relatively liberal on social issues (although he hasn't shown much backbone on them), supportive of health care reform, and pro-business. On foreign policy, he echoes a lot of George Bush's ideas, although without the swagger and arrogance that would likely lead us into another ill-conceived war. He's mostly supported by upper-class, educated, urban, moderate Republicans.

Pawlenty - Ever since he waded into a possible presidential run, I think he's been trying to position himself as the generic Republican who toes the party line and doesn't piss anyone off. I think that strategy is unlikely to work, but it is what it is. Although he hasn't taken strong stances on much of anything, I would describe him as a "big government conservative." He'll probably appeal to the few people who don't like any of the other Republican candidates. Not a winning strategy IMO.

Daniels - Although not a libertarian by any means, Mitch Daniels is probably the closest thing to a small-government conservative among the serious contenders. As a governor, he has been a big proponent of busting unions and cutting spending. He's asked for a "truce" on social issues, which I interpret as an indication that he's moderate-to-liberal on them. He has shown little interest in foreign policy, indicating that he may be more supportive of a moderate approach than he lets on. I think he appeals to well-educated libertarians and conservatives.

Huckabee - Mike Huckabee tends to be the most overtly religious candidate in the race, and wears his Christianity on his sleeve. He's plainly a social conservative, but has sharp disagreements with the Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy. He described Bush's foreign policy as "arrogant" way back in 2007, even before it was cool for Republicans to do that. On economic issues, I think he's a moderate populist who probably fits into the "big government conservative" category as well. I think he'll mainly appeal to evangelical Christians and rural Republicans.

Palin - She's the populist of the crowd, constantly attacking government bureaucrats, bankers, universities, the media, and the elite. She favors an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative social agenda, and lower taxes. It's unclear if she has any plans to cut spending. I think she appeals mainly to the low-income, uneducated subset of Republicans. But she may not even want to run for president.

All except that last one were pretty good. See my last post on why I'm not surprised, sadden though.
 
I really do not like Pawlenty, at all. He's a typical yes-man, and he has ZERO charisma. Even if he won a debate on substance, Bammy's flippant flowery bilge would override the court of public opinion.

Unfortunately Romney is the man to beat. I like him as a person, but he has a lot of political baggage, and most evangelicals are too bigoted to vote for a follower of Joseph Smith.

I do think someone unexpected will rise in the end, but Romney's infrastructure and cash are going to be a tough battle.
 
And Palin is not running. She is nothing more than a voice of conservative beliefs and a media whore. With nice legs.
 
I really do not like Pawlenty, at all. He's a typical yes-man, and he has ZERO charisma. Even if he won a debate on substance, Bammy's flippant flowery bilge would override the court of public opinion.

Unfortunately Romney is the man to beat. I like him as a person, but he has a lot of political baggage, and most evangelicals are too bigoted to vote for a follower of Joseph Smith.

I do think someone unexpected will rise in the end, but Romney's infrastructure and cash are going to be a tough battle.

I wouldn't vote for anyone named after a piece of sports equipment. Why do you think Pad Buchanan never got anywhere?
 
I wouldn't vote for anyone named after a piece of sports equipment. Why do you think Pad Buchanan never got anywhere?

I would vote for a woman named Nike, if she had huge tits and a nice ass.
 
As much as I'd like Palin to be the Republican nominee for purely cynical reasons, I don't think it's going to happen. According to InTrade, she's now the FIFTH most likely nominee, behind Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huckabee. In fact, InTrade is skeptical that she'll even run for president at all. Her odds of announcing a presidential bid by the end of 2011 are only trading at 43%.

Either Daniels or Pawlenty works for me. Huckabee? No way. I actually supported him until he made the statement that, if elected, he would change the Constitution for Jesus Christ. And Palin. You already know where I stand there.
 
Of course someone will. I'm merely giving a "March 2011" POV from a conservative stance using the 2010 elections as a guide based on the rise of the tea party mentality driving conservatives to the polls. Cept Huckabee, that smarmy SOB can go suck an egg.

Romney has the albatross of being a Mass. Gov that instituted a big government healthcare system.

Pawlenty is a warmer, a big government can save the earth type that looks to Jimmy Carter for wisdom... that's gonna haunt him in the primaries.

Daniels really says a lot of good things but his Indiana plan is gonna be a tough thing to over come.

Palin probably won't even run and if she does it's unlikely she'd win. The media did a bang up job of destroying her, so now it's impossible ot have an honest discussion about her. She isn't perfect, but she's not the bumbling hick moron that so many claim she is.


I think it's gonna be a dark horse, someone no one is really talking about right now.

Here's my choice :)
 
The nation is sick of politics. Obama and his scandalous methods have worn us out.

I will be blunt here. If you really want a change from Obama, you are going to have to support someone who is not an idiot, and who is also electable. Palin fails on both counts. She is a cult of personality, rather than an infusion of ideas to the GOP.
 
Don't buy it....its just propoganda from the GOP elite who are trying to keep Sarah Palin off the ticket. They know that the people of the GOP want Palin as their nominee but they want the nomination to go to someone within their power structure. They are trying to convince people that Palin isn't electable and if too many people buy into it, she won't be.
 
Don't buy it....its just propoganda from the GOP elite who are trying to keep Sarah Palin off the ticket. They know that the people of the GOP want Palin as their nominee but they want the nomination to go to someone within their power structure. They are trying to convince people that Palin isn't electable and if too many people buy into it, she won't be.

But she isn't electable. Don't you remember how she was torn apart in the 2008 campaign, and by the likes of Katie Couric ffs!? As candidate her intellectual and political shortcomings would be magnified a hundredfold. That's what the GOP leadership is trying to avoid. If middle America, not the GOP heartlands alone, chose Obama over McCain, you think they'd swing way off to the extreme and support a Palin presidency? Of course, stranger things have happened, let's wait and see.
 
This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."

It's pretty simple really. She would like to return America to a country that follows the Constitution, a country that isn't ghetto-ized by tax-and-spend welfare redistribution schemes. A country that is a leader in the world, not an apologist for being great. She wants to remove the burdens of government from our lives and from businesses. I'm sure she would like to cut and gut all those agencies with unelected officials that make laws, and have us less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

In short, she's a Conservative who has 10-times the substance and spine as the fraud we have at the helm now.

Obama is Al Sharpton with slicker delivery and packaging. A Reverend Wright trained welfare state poverty pimp who hawks the race card at every turn.

I can't believe some people fail to understand Palin, and find it even more amazing how gutless people are.

Andalublue: Yes Palin had a poor moment with Couric. Big deal. Obama gaffed his way through the campaign, sloughs off tough questions (and the press lets him), and is still in hiding. 2+ years has revealed what a moron our Dear Leader is, and what he thinks of us and this country... and you actually cite one instance Palin didn't do well as an example of her not being able to be elected? (Face Palm Icon) If that's the standard, Obama's past 2+ years is his send-off to spend a life sentence at The Gulag for Political Invalids.

He was unqualified, he had enormous baggage with The Racist Wright and The Terrorist Ayers... he ran from all his so-called friends... but he is electable and Palin isn't?

Sorry but having elected a lite-weight anti-American, and then claiming Palin (the anti-anti-American) isn't electable (especially after the midterms) goes right into The Encyclopedia of Bad Logic.

Of course, there is something to be said for the herd-mentality. If Palin runs, my bet is she will overcome this hurdle; never on the left, but within the party... because she is a straight shooter. And if not 2012, perhaps 2020. She's still young.

.
 
Last edited:
This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."

Her game is to play victim as she has been doing since at least the 2008 elections.
 
Andalublue: Yes Palin had a poor moment with Couric. Big deal. Obama gaffed his way through the campaign, sloughs off tough questions (and the press lets him), and is still in hiding. 2+ years has revealed what a moron our Dear Leader is, and what he thinks of us and this country... and you actually cite one instance Palin didn't do well as an example of her not being able to be elected? (Face Palm Icon) If that's the standard, Obama's past 2+ years is his send-off to spend a life sentence at The Gulag for Political Invalids.

He was unqualified,

You think 31 months in charge of a state with the population of a medium-sized city and the complexity of a minor county is really qualification enough for highest office? At least Obama had spent time in Congress.
 
You think 31 months in charge of a state with the population of a medium-sized city and the complexity of a minor county is really qualification enough for highest office? At least Obama had spent time in Congress.

And what did he do there? What executive experience had he? He's not a leader.

Let's face facts, Obama's strength is sounding like he knows what he's doing. But the man lacks vision, leadership... it really get's under my skin when he says that "We need to be a competitor in the global market". Am I the only one that sees the problem there?
 
Either Daniels or Pawlenty works for me. Huckabee? No way. I actually supported him until he made the statement that, if elected, he would change the Constitution for Jesus Christ. And Palin. You already know where I stand there.

The substantive Daniels is a credible candidate, but he has one ugly wart: He was GW Bush's OMB Director. The Bush budget was nothing by incredible imagination. Daniel's biggest single blunder in his tenure there (aside from being associated with a bad cast of characters), was his assertion that the Iraqi conflict would cost a mere $50B (even admonishing someone else that said it would cost $200B). The currrent direct price tag is close to $1T.
 
Her game is to play victim as she has been doing since at least the 2008 elections.

I don't see how standing up to people who bash you and your family as "playing the victim."

However Obama has been fawned over from the beginning in the media, except for FOX.
What does Obama say about them? "They treat me like a dog." Ahh...poor baby. He should try walking in Palin's shoes for a while.
 
I will be blunt here. If you really want a change from Obama, you are going to have to support someone who is not an idiot, and who is also electable. Palin fails on both counts. She is a cult of personality, rather than an infusion of ideas to the GOP.

It may be true that Palin is unelectable because of the way she is unfairly portrayed in the media. She is far from being an idiot. You bought into what the media has been feeding you, if that's what you think.
 
Spent time in congress, my fanny! Present, here, present, here, no vote.....
 
Personally I thought that moment arrived long ago, and that the writers of the Weekly Standard are a little slow to the music.
 
You think 31 months in charge of a state with the population of a medium-sized city and the complexity of a minor county is really qualification enough for highest office? At least Obama had spent time in Congress.

Time in Congress doing what? Voting present most of the time? Well, except for the vote that would allow a doctor to intervene if a baby survived an abortion? He made sure he voted that time against everyone else. I wonder what Planned Parenthood promised him for that vote.
Yea, Obama had lots of experience.:roll:
 
The substantive Daniels is a credible candidate, but he has one ugly wart: He was GW Bush's OMB Director. The Bush budget was nothing by incredible imagination. Daniel's biggest single blunder in his tenure there (aside from being associated with a bad cast of characters), was his assertion that the Iraqi conflict would cost a mere $50B (even admonishing someone else that said it would cost $200B). The currrent direct price tag is close to $1T.

:lamo
If that would matter to people, why the hec do we have Obama as president???
 
Back
Top Bottom