Lay Out Your Best Paths to Republican Nomination and/or General Election Win Options

[ColonelKlink]

Ugh. She said really which would imply "more" proud.

No, she didn't. Look, liberals don't get to make up the facts that suit them. The video is right there. What she said is "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." Full stop.

She was honest enough to admit what many liberals feel. They don't feel proud of their country nor do they love it that much either. What they feel proud of and love is what they imagine they could turn the country into if they could implement their plans. They love this imaginary vision of America.

[Stormiya]

I actually think she can win the primary very easily. Yeah, most of the establishment will be against her, but that actually works in her favor. Like you said, she can play up the outsider image. Also, truth is, she has very powerful supporters. Rush, the Fox peeps...they love her. And there are polticians who realize that the outsider way is the way to go right now, so she will have their support. But anyway, I think that she can get the nomination because her competition really isn't that fierce. If there was an anti-Palin candidate who was actually good, I wouldn't feel that way. Romney is the most anti-Palin choice, but he's got so many flaws. She just doesn't have very strong competition. She is the one who ignites the most passion in her supporters, and that helps a lot. I honestly don't even think she needs a slick operation right now. I do think that she'll need one if she makes it to the general, though, which is why I said she needs to bring on some of those Republicans who dislike her. And like I said, they'll do it, 'cause they'll be getting paid.

Another reason why she should wait to get into the race is because she can avoid a lot of those early debates.

Maybe the Primary won't be too hard but I think it will. I think we will see a repeat of what happened to Hillary to be honest. A big movement within the party to get a "not Hillary" candidate. [Watch Jindal or some other minority Republican be pushed into running agianst her...] The GOP has more right to be concerned with Palin's electability then the Dems did with Hillary. I think unwittingly they will make her the outsiders candidate and make her resonate even more so with middle class voters. And a tough campaign will only make her supporters more fiercly loyal to her.

YES! less debates for her is for the best. Although eventually she is going to need to have a good showing.

This post has been edited by Stormiya: Dec 28th 2010, 8:29 PM

[Stormiya]

She was honest enough to admit what many liberals feel. They don't feel proud of their country nor do they love it that much either. What they feel proud of and love is what they imagine they could turn the country into if they could implement their plans. They love this imaginary vision of America.

The only ones who are stuck in a imaginary vision of America are the Conservatives like you. You like to imagine the one that lacks Feminist, Gays, Immigrants and blacks. The one where everyone is the same

This post has been edited by Stormiya: Dec 28th 2010, 8:35 PM

[Famousgrl]

No, she didn't. Look, liberals don't get to make up the facts that suit them. The video is right there. What she said is "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." Full stop.

She was honest enough to admit what many liberals feel. They don't feel proud of their country nor do they love it that much either. What they feel proud of and love is what they imagine they could turn the country into if they could implement their plans. They love this imaginary vision of America.

Ugh. She repeated it and said "really" proud, which means she corrected her statement to more accurately reflect what she was saying. Also, she was speaking in a political context, but I know context doesn't matter much when you've got an agenda.

Maybe the Primary won't be too hard but I think it will. I think we will see a repeat of what happened to Hillary to be honest. A big movement within the party to get a "not Hillary" candidate. [Watch Jindal or some other minority Republican be pushed into running agianst her...] The GOP has more right to be concerned with Palin's electability then the Dems did with Hillary. I think unwittingly they will make her the outsiders candidate and make her resonate even more so with middle class voters. And a tough campaign will only make her supporters more fiercly loyal to her.

Well, I believe that they are already trying to draft a candidate, but I'm not sure one exists. Which brings me to something I've been meaning to say for awhile. The GOP does have a good crop for the future, and that's bothersome, because right now the Democrats don't really. Jindal, Christie, Brown, Rubio...all of them could be players on the national stage in the future.

Hillary really needs to run in 2016.

[ColonelKlink]

Ugh. She repeated it and said "really" proud, which means she corrected her statement to more accurately reflect what she was saying. Also, she was speaking in a political context, but I know context doesn't matter much when you've got an agenda.

Again, you don't get to make up your own facts. She didn't repeat the phrase and correct herself. After the speech she was being assailed for telling the truth and her advisers modified the speech which she gave in another city and that's when she inserted the word "really" in front of proud. The text on her teleprompter was changed to blunt the message revealed in her true feelings.

We know these are her true feelings because we've been able to read her Princeton thesis and she expressed the same feelings in that document that she expressed many years later on stage in Milwaukee.

The reason this wasn't caught in the speech drafting phase, the uploading to the teleprompter phase, the multiple speech rehearsals, was because she, and her team, are of a like mind. They're all not proud of America. They see America as a deeply flawed society. This is why Obama is conducting an international apology tour.

This post has been edited by ColonelKlink: Dec 28th 2010, 8:50 PM

[Stormiya]

Well, I believe that they are already trying to draft a candidate, but I'm not sure one exists. Which brings me to something I've been meaning to say for awhile. The GOP does have a good crop for the future, and that's bothersome, because right now the Democrats don't really. Jindal, Christie, Brown, Rubio...all of them could be players on the national stage in the future.

Hillary really needs to run in 2016.

I guess we will see within the next year or so.

very true. Although we still have options on the Democratic side. I think we need to watch Senator Gillibrand. She's been pretty awesome and she strikes me as very ambitious.

Agreed.

[Famousgrl]

Omg, ck, you really are delusional. She wasn't being assailed after the first time. She said both statements, and then Fox conveniently aired only the first one and started assailing her.

Hey, tell your heroine to stop focusing on Michelle, and spend a little more time focusing on the state she quit on:

Alaska just 33% of voters have a favorable opinion of her to 58% with a negative one. The only place where fewer voters see her positively than her own home state is dark blue Massachusetts.

Democrats hate Palin in Alaska but they hate her everywhere so there's nothing newsworthy about that. What makes her home state numbers unusually bad is that Republicans see her favorably by only a 60/30 margin. In most places she's closer to 80% favorability within her own party. Also while independents don't like her anywhere their level of animosity in Alaska is unusually large- 65% unfavorable to only 25% with a favorable opinion.

Which reminds me, I get so focused on how batsh*t Republicans are, that I sometimes forget that they may see the light on Palin too. So I take back a little bit my feelings on Palin potentially being able to easily walk to the nomination. If her opponents successfully exploit the "quitter" meme early on, and steadfastly, that may be potent enough to derail her. That is if her usual self-imploding antics don't do her in first. I do think she can get away with running a very non-traditional campaign during the primaries, due to her power & the supporters she has already acquired, so that should help her avoid embarrassing herself too much.

I agree that Gillibrand is ambitious, Rudy.

[Stormiya]

Liz Do you not like Gillibrand?

[Famousgrl]

Liz Do you not like Gillibrand?

My lack of comment wasn't due to dislike, it was more due to unsureness of whether or not she could play on the national stage or not. I don't dislike her, but I originally thought that she was too much of a Blue Dog. I haven't been following her closely enough to make a determination yet, though I do know she's become more liberal.

This post has been edited by Famousgrl: Dec 28th 2010, 9:18 PM

[ColonelKlink]

Omg, ck, you really are delusional. She wasn't being assailed after the first time. She said both statements, and then Fox conveniently aired only the first one and started assailing her.

First you told us that she never said the first statement. Then you modified your position to saying that she corrected herself. Now you're modifying your position to be one where she said both statements. The way you write this I presume that you're disputing my contention that her second statement, the "really proud" statement didn't occur in a different speech given in a different city and instead you're arguing that the 2nd statement was in the same speech given in Milwaukee. Is that your position now?

[Famousgrl]

First you told us that she never said the first statement. Then you modified your position to saying that she corrected herself. Now you're modifying your position to be one where she said both statements. The way you write this I presume that you're disputing my contention that her second statement, the "really proud" statement didn't occur in a different speech given in a different city and instead you're arguing that the 2nd statement was in the same speech given in Milwaukee. Is that your position now?

No. I said that she said really. She self-corrected, and thus the first statement was less important, as she explicitly expressed her intent. I know for a fact that Fox didn't start airing the first statement until after she made the second statement, because I remember the brouhaha on messageboards that day. Liberals were upset because they felt Fox edited the statement, and they posted the second statement. On that same morning that Fox went on the attack. Both statements were made prior to Fox pulling their usual shenanigans.

Regardless, it's a desperate issue.

This post has been edited by Famousgrl: Dec 28th 2010, 9:18 PM

[Stormiya]

My lack of comment wasn't due to dislike, it was more due to unsureness of whether or not she could play on the national stage or not. I don't dislike her, but I originally thought that she was too much of a Blue Dog. I haven't been falling her closely enough to make a determination yet, though I do know she's become more liberal.

Understandable. I think her blue dog roots will be a strength for her on the national stage

[Famousgrl]

And by the way, I don't believe that Michelle spoke from a teleprompter at most campaign stops. This is one of the things that Lynn Sweet pointed out about her during the election season. It was something that she found impressive. If I'm not mistaken, I think she also mentioned that she doesn't use notes.

[ColonelKlink]

No. I said that she said really. She self-corrected, and thus the first statement was less important, as she explicitly expressed her intent.

Let me see if I understand how you're thinking on this matter. Let's pretend that you're watching a conversation where one person is making references to a country and after numerous references to that country they slip up, say for instance, substituting North Korea for South Korea, and they address their error 4 seconds later. That type of incident would clearly indicate that the person can't distinguish between North Korea and South Korea.

Then there is another person who makes a statement and lets it stand uncorrected in that speech. Then in another city she gives the same speech (not memorized but off a teleprompter) but this time she modifies the speech. The fact that she didn't self-correct immediately indicates that this wasn't a slip of the tongue. The fact that she didn't self-correct immediately after giving the speech when one of her aides informed her of her slip-up indicates that no one thought it significant. What really counts is the 2nd speech. Why?

[Famousgrl]

I've never been a fan of CK logic.

Just go focus on Todd's emails.

[Famousgrl]

Btw, Rudy, Republicans are trying to get John Thune in the race to thwart Palin. If he decides to run, I think he could do well in the primaries.

Also, obviously Huckabee is not to be discounted. If he can effectively make the case of electability, he could do quite well.

[ColonelKlink]

Btw, Rudy, Republicans are trying to get John Thune in the race to thwart Palin. If he decides to run, I think he could do well in the primaries.

Also, obviously Huckabee is not to be discounted. If he can effectively make the case of electability, he could do quite well.

Four cops are dead because Huckabee went all liberal with his biblical outreach and let a killer out of prison. That pretty much dooms him with a large segment of law and order Republicans.

[Stormiya]

Btw, Rudy, Republicans are trying to get John Thune in the race to thwart Palin. If he decides to run, I think he could do well in the primaries.

Also, obviously Huckabee is not to be discounted. If he can effectively make the case of electability, he could do quite well.

He does look a formidable opponent and would take away from Palin's evangelical base. Better watch him.


Agreed. I wonder what the primaries would look like with Romney, Palin, Huckabee and Thune? With the latter three splitting evangelicals I can see that helping Romney

This post has been edited by Stormiya: Dec 29th 2010, 12:29 AM

[Stormiya]

Liz did you know this guy is already starting to run for the Republican nomination?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Karger


This post has been edited by Stormiya: Dec 29th 2010, 12:38 AM

[ColonelKlink]

Not a cop out, it's just a waste of time to talk about something that was so ridiculous that even McCain realized it was ridiculous. No one vets what their acquaintances may have done when they were six, first of all. Second of all, one of McCain's biggest supporters is the one who actually put Ayers on that board, so unless he's all of the things they accuse Obama of, then....

Don't care. Waste of time. Like I said, I welcome you to push this issue as America collectively rolls their eyes.

It's quite clear that you and many liberals don't care and are happy to continue to base your worldview on feelings and wishes rather than on logic and facts:

So I want to present you with a hypothetical. Let's say a leader were elected who had, during his childhood, been mentored by an avowed Nazi. Let us further say that his guardians had chosen this mentor for him, indicating that they were likely sympathetic to the man's beliefs. Now, let us say that upon reaching college, this future leader gravitated toward Nazi professors. Moreover, we then find out that a man who knew the leader as an undergraduate and was, at the time, a Nazi himself, said that the leader was "in 100-percent total agreement" with his Nazi professors and was a flat-out Nazi who believed in old-style Brownshirt tactics.

Okay, we're almost done. After graduating, the leader-to-be spends twenty years sitting in a white-power church, has an alliance with a self-proclaimed Nazi and ex-terrorist, and, apparently, becomes a member of a National Socialist party for a while. And then, upon being elected, he appoints an avowed Nazi to his administration and also a woman who cites Adolf Hitler as one of her two favorite philosophers. Now here's the million-depreciated-dollar question:

What would be nuttier: to claim that this man was a Nazi or to claim that such an assertion is out-of-bounds?

Furthermore, if people appeared unconcerned about the leader's radical past, what would be the most likely explanation?

A. They're sympathetic to Nazism.

B. They're ignorant of his personal history.

C. They're rationalizing away a frightening reality.

D. Some combination of the above.

Let's now transition to the actual. Here is a fact: If you took the above description of my hypothetical leader and replaced "Nazi" with "communist," "flat-out Nazi" with "flat-out Marxist-Leninist," "Brownshirt tactics" with "communist revolution," "white-power" with "black-power," "National Socialist" with "socialist," and "Adolf Hitler" "with Mao Tse-tung," you would have an accurate description of a leader in power today.

His name is Barack Obama.

We'll start from the top. Obama's childhood mentor was chosen by his guardians, his grandparents, and was avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis. Obama did in fact gravitate toward communist professors in college; moreover, we now know about ex-communist John Drew, a contemporary of Obama's at Occidental College who verifies that Obama was "in 100-percent total agreement" with his communist professors and was a flat-out "Marxist-Leninist" who believed in old-style communist revolution.

We also know that upon graduating, Obama spent twenty years in a black-power church, Trinity United of Reverend Jeremiah Wright fame, and had an alliance with self-proclaimed communist and ex-terrorist Bill Ayers. It also appears -- and I have yet to see anyone address and disprove this association -- that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago in the 1990s. Then, upon being elected, Obama appointed avowed communist Van Jones to his administration and also Anita Dunn, who cited mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung as one of her two favorite philosophers. There's more, too, but greater detail is hardly necessary.

It also shouldn't be necessary to ask the question, but I will:

What is nuttier: to claim that this man is a communist or to claim that such an assertion is out-of-bounds?

What is the obvious conclusion?