Palin "going rogue"

What do you mean by "lose badly"? The polls show him down by 8%, it can't get much worse than that at this point, can it? I mean, wouldn't it have by now?

And these polls always skew Democrat. I see him losing by 3-4 points in the end. This is a 50/50 country. But a landslide? No way.

Maybe we can get a new Republican party, one that actually looks for what is honestly good policy on matters in which conservatism is otherwise stuck in a rut. I'm not even sure I recognize the "conservatism" of the Bush faction anymore. It's been about businessism from day one and businessism is not inherently conservative.

I'm tired of having to defend my party's environmental record because to be interested in environmental and ecological stewardship-- fair managed use and renewal and all that-- isn't "conservative." The h### it isn't. What it isn't is businessist.

I'm tired of having to smile and shop at Walmart because of local zoning and federal economic policies that encourage big box stores, and because being interested in promoting real human rights is not "conservatism." The h### it isn't. What it isn't is businessist.

I'm tired of "conservatism" that throws money at firms that blow through it like a freight train blowing by a hobo. I'm tired of "conservatism" that treats every discussion about taxes as anathema. I want a conservatism that will be sensible about money. I want a conservatism that will actually conserve. What a concept.

I'm hoping the GOP loses 65-35 in 2008; and if Palin is the new leader, I'm guessing and hoping a 80-20 loss in 2012. Yes indeedy, you betcha, Go Baby Go, you can do it.

She should be completely herself. She was constrained by the "handlers" in the beginning, and look where it got her and the campaign. Peggy Noonan warned in her first article referencing Sarah Palin, that the McCain team would do her in if it was in the best interest of McCain. I think Palin has figured that out. John McCain seems to want her to be herself, so, good on her for no longer being "handled".

Well, it depends.

If it is about expressing opinions and acting more natural, that's one thing.

On the other hand, if what she is 'mavericking' against is McCain, that's a problem.

You see, Palin is running for, last I checked, VICE President. She can't sneeze, in her future job description, without checking with the President first. Her job, other than breaking ties and checking to see if he's still alive, is to support his policies.

So, contradicting McCain makes her even more unsuited to be a VP than she already is.

And, of course, since he's top of the ticket, it says that even his handpicked VP doesn't think he's the one with the right ideas for the country. She seems like she doesn't even think he's qualified to run his own campaign.

Can't be VP unless he becomes President, dontcha know..

Ok, raise your hands. Who remembers who was Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964?

Palin has no future other than a comic footnote.

I don't know, Eddie in CA. I'd say what Gov. Palin expressed in that excerpt of the stump speech pretty much sums up most of the fears I have about Obama as well. Other than the FOCA thing, of course. Did you know it's illegal to homeschool in Germany? That you can be prosecuted for speaking publicly against homosexuality in Canada? These would be examples of socialist countries whose populace isn't as free as Americans currently are. I like her better after that excerpt, thanks. I look forward to hearing more of what she has to say in these last few days.

Little Red Hen -

Fascinating...

So nationalizing the banks doesn't scare or bother you, but theoretical things that haven't happened scare and bother you.

So having the Federal Government bail out failing private companies doesn't scare or bother you (and isn't socialism or communism); but theoretical things that no one has proposed legislation on scare and bother you.

So having the Federal Government guaranteering private loans to homeowners doesn't scare or bother you (and isnt' socialism or communism), but issues in Germany and Canada bother you.

You've shown, succinctly, why it's hard to take so many "conservatives" seriously when it comes to a policy discussion.

Hey Eddie. Not only is Palin saying it, it is absolutely true.

And I add my "second that notion" to her.

That you dislike her for being perceptive, truthful, and dead on accurate about things only reveals what kind of person you are... Oh, and lest you get all obnoxious and claim some kind "better than you are" nonsense...

You're not. The fact that you can't recognize reality when it is stuffed into your face puts you in proper light.

Mick
October 25, 2008 11:15 PM
What do you mean by "lose badly"? The polls show him down by 8%, it can't get much worse than that at this point, can it? I mean, wouldn't it have by now?

Popular vote doesn't mean diddly - take a look at the Electoral College maps:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama 375 McCain 157 Ties 6

That's what I, for one, mean by losing badly.

Eddie:

I agree with what Palin said in your excerpt. Here's some examples of why:

Obama has an atrocious record on gun rights. He has made vague statements to try and reassure the country in order to get re-elected, but I believe his administration will take action to limit my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Specific actions I fear are a new ban on "assault rifles", handguns, and ammunition taxes.

Obama will get government more involved in health care. As a result government administrators will become even more involved in my health care decisions than insurance company represtnatives are now.

Obama has stated that I should not expect to be allowed to decide how warm or cold my home should be, or what kind of vehicle I should be allowed to drive.

Congressional Dems are discussing eliminating the 401k program as the "government investment" (read:money I have earned that they been kind enough to let me keep) is not paying off. I would like to hear Obama shoot this ridiculous concept down immediately.

All of these issues cut to chase of what I consider to be the essential reason I oppose BHO. He has no problem with reducing my liberty to re-order society into what HE thinks it should be. He believes that he knows better than I what is good for me.

Not that McCain is great on these issues, but he is better than Obama. Palin's comments indicate to me that she understands and agrees with me that Obama's tendency to impose solutions on the citizenry will destroy liberty.

If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your specific thoughts. The fact that you don't think you could dislike Palin any more than you already do is not a specific. Obama would make us less free.

It's amazing that you can see the future so well Rod. Do you have the gift of prophecy?

"Ordinary people are empowered by her,"

No. A small, specific subset of people who believe they are "ordinary people" feel empowered by her. She has extraordinarily high negatives, all of them from "ordinary people." She had high positives in the 47th largest state in the country, one of the most corrupt states in the entire country, and in s atate that couldn't be more different from the states where "ordinary people" live.

If there is a state in the nation that could be described as a "Peoples Republic of ..." it would be Alaska, where money from oil and the pipeline provides more social spending per capita than any other state in the nation. Of course it isn't the people of Alaska taxing themselves to pay for all the stuff; the people of the Lower Forty-eight have that priviledge. And don't let any of that get in the way of thinking of Alaskans as hearty pioneers facing the world alone. After all, we all need our myths to survive, and nothing demonstrates the power of myth more than listening to Sarah Palin.

By all means free her. After two months of tutoring let us hear what she has to say. Frankly, I think Palin is mortally wounded. The party would be much better off grooming Jindal or some others who can offer competence.

Steve

Jim -

You're simply choosing to ignore Obama's actual words, and instead choosing to believe a caricature of Obama that you've created in your mind.

1. He's said he's a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and it's a major part of his campaign.

2. Whomever is elected will have to deal with healthcare because, right now, it's the one issue right and left overwhelmingly agree on. There is a mandate to deal with health care, because what we have right now isn't working.

3. Obama never said what you claim in regards to how warm your house can be and what kind of car you drive. Context is everything. Here is the exact quote: We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll -- we'll be fine, don't worry about us. That's not leadership. Obama was making the point that we, as a nation, are using more of the world's energy than is smart for our long term prosperity. You intentionally choose to give it a different meaning to suit your suppositions about Obama.

4. Congressional Dems (and Repubs) discuss all sorts of legislation every damn day. Why not wait until it's actually something more concrete than "a discussion" before getting involved in having Obama shoot it down. With so much of the population having their money in 401Ks, I'm sure any changes to 401K legislation would have to be supported by a huge majority of Americans, so the risk of Obama doing anything radical to 401Ks is very unlikely.

5. What in his proposals and policies to date - either as a US Senator or State Senator in Illinois support your theory that Obama..."He has no problem with reducing my liberty to re-order society into what HE thinks it should be. He believes that he knows better than I what is good for me. " Obama speaks about "We" a whole lot more than "I". So I'm curious what official policies and proposals he's put forth to support your fear.

6. As for Palin:
A. Was against the Bridge to Nowhere: Not so much.
B. Was agaisnt Earmarks: Not so much.
C. Supports socialism when it comes to giving Alaskans $3200 per year from Oil Companies.
D. Fiscally Responsible Mayor: Not so much. Left Wasilla with $20Million long term debt when the city was debt free when she left office.
E. Reformer: Not so much. Found guilty of ethics violation by bipartisan legislative investigation.
F. Reformer: Not so much. Appointed unqualified friends and cronies to fill out senior positions in her administration.
G. Is incapable of showing any class or respect for Biden or Obama. When has she ever said a kind word about either of them?

There you go, Paul. Your turn.

Howard -

Ah... 1992... I remember it well... Let's step into the WayBack machine, shall we?

Clinton supporters who trashed Quayle from day one are ranting about his verbal mistakes and other petty matters, while an anti-American Socialist / Marxist who visited Russia is about to hijack our government with the help of voter fraud and a corrupt biased media. You'd better wake up America ... or, this country is about to experience an ugly 4 year long nightmare under Clinton/Gore !!!

Yeah, those 8 years of properity were certainly a nightmare.

Eddie:

So when I make the statement that Barack Obama has an atrocious record on gun rights I'm "choosing to believe a caricature of Obama that you've created in (my) mind"?

Have I caricatured Obama into somehow having made the following statements?

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."

"I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..."

"I have never favored an *all-out* ban on handguns"

Yet you are the one who says I have caricatured Obama into something he is not. You are the one who, and I quote, said in you response to me "You're simply choosing to ignore Obama's actual words".

Above are some direct quotes from Barack Obama, along with the one you supplied about not keeping my house at 72 degrees or not driving SUV's or eating as much as we want. But you accuse me of choosing to ignore Obama's actual words.

Perhaps you need to pay attention to his actual words. I have, and from paying attention to them I have drawn logical conclusions.

Given what I know about the definition of socialism, how does "giving Alaskans $3200 per year from oil companies" qualify?

Those are your words.

"G. Is incapable of showing any class or respect for Biden or Obama. When has she ever said a kind word about either of them?"

And this is bad exactly how...?

Is this bizzaro world? Are people here actually arguing against Palin and for Obama/Biden because Republicans are guilty of not being conservative enough? That one should vote against the GOP and for Obama because RINOs are not conservatives?

That's just crazy talk.

I never thought I would agree with Frum, but I said last week that the only people who have been empowered and inspired by Palin are a very thin slice of the rabidly right wing, at best a very vocal minority. The wide, moderate middle of America has been repulsed by the McCain campaign, and the record-high negative favorability of Palin reveals that most people associate the worst aspects of his hate- and fear-mongering with her.

EVEN IF she avoids impeachment in Alaska, I think her time on the national political stage is over. Like Karl Rove or Bill Kristol, she may find a niche on Fox News or at some radical Bob Jones type fringe establishment. But you can't remake yourself to the moderate majority once you've gone the Pat Buchanan route. Her 15 minutes are just about up.

"The time from selection to election is and was very short, and it took less than that for Palin to learn the ropes and figure out who was wise and who was stupid, who to listen to and who not."

Such disprovable blarney. Even this very day, she spoke in Tampa and brought up Wardrobe-gate. Like her handlers didn't tell her not to? Like America needs to be reminded that one who mocks the "elite" gets a $150,000.00 wardrobe to sashay around in. That's nearly 4 times "Joe the unlicensed plumber's" annual salary.

She cleary has NOT learned to zip it when she needs to. (Not thst what comes out of her mouth is articulate anyway.)

Oh, and we still be waitin' on her to "get back to us" on the name of even ONE Supeme Court decision with which she either agrees or disagrees.

Little Red Hen said,

"Did you know ... [t]hat you can be prosecuted for speaking publicly against homosexuality in Canada?"

Sorry, but that is a blatant falsehood, garnished with a wallop of spin. Isn't bearing false witness a sin anymore?

"These would be examples of socialist countries whose populace isn't as free as Americans currently are."

Sorry, but I lose so many rights and freedoms when I cross the border into the U.S., so I know that's not true either. For starters, my marriage is not recognized by the U.S. government, so my husband I are legally unrelated non-entitiees in your "free" county.

Ever hear of illegal wiretaps in your "free" country? Or how about those persons incarcerated without charge or access to legal counsel in your "free" country?

The delusional right is wrong.

I think I see a black helicopter overhead.

See that man over there? His bow tie is really a camera.

Eddie:

Your definition of socialism-"The very definition of Socialism - Government took money from an income producer and gave it to the citizens for... nothing. THAT's socialism." doesn't match mine, or any other thinking person's. Socialism is centered on the State owning the means of production.

Do you still think that I am choosing to believe a caricature of Obama I have invented, or not?

You can have the last word, as I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind.

Socialism... State ownership of production.

Fascism... State control over private means of production.

And to think that Democrats would scream like enraged tasmanian devils if you called them fascists...

But that's precisely what they believe in.

Obama's into redistribution? Darn right.

His own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Basically, he says that "civil rights" are incomplete without redistribution of wealth.

Getting back to this rather late after a full weekend, but....

Eddie in CA, I said those were the things that concerned me about OBAMA, not the sum total of things that concern me. Of course I'm concerned about the other things you mentioned, but so far as I can see there is no particular difference in how Obama versus McCain plan to handle the economic issues mentioned.

I must say when the "Palin Goes Rogue" story first hit I got excited. In my heart I always knew this conservative believer in faith, family, and independence, could not be pigeon-holed into the neo-con agenda.

I cannot believe she supports American wars in far-away places. But how can she say it? After McCain loses, she will have a brief moment to seize the future of America's pragmatic conservative base - before the neo-cons kick her down the stairs. If she's one of us - we will need to support her.

Strongly suggest you read this article http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/oct/06/00008/

in this periodical: http://www.amconmag.com/issue/2008/oct/06/