389 replies to this topic

[MantaRay]

She is seen as a "joke" mostly because she has been fiercely attacked unfairly in the media, and a lot of people have bought into the hate they read and see on TV. I think it's sad.

Are you kidding?? Do you actually listen to her?

Even John McCain's top aides described her as "mentally unstable" and that comes out every time she speaks.

You can blame the media for giving her enough rope.

[Jerrydevil]

Are you kidding?? Do you actually listen to her?

Even John McCain's top aides described her as "mentally unstable" and that comes out every time she speaks.

You can blame the media for giving her enough rope.

Manta, I like her ideas and am impressed with her record in Alaska. I don't care what John McCain's people say. In fact, I think McCain's people are despicable. "Mentally unstable"? Come on, that's a cheap shot, and it's the kind of thing we see all too often from liberal bloggers and talk show hosts.

Some pretty awful, mean-spirited things have been said about Palin and her family by Bill Maher, David Letterman and others. There is no excuse for it. You don't like her brand of conservatism, fine. That's not an invitation to say nasty, personal things ... or publish a disgraceful hit piece like this book Joe McGinniss wrote.

[squishyx]

The moonbat![/b]

This made me laugh I may have to steal this.

Yeah, Massachusetts Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren recently said something like that. The moonbat! Except in her rationale, it's OK to confiscate money from others to give it to the government, so politicians decide how best to use it (waste it).

I did listen to her lil' stump speech so I probably channeled a little bit of her, but I think my point is still valid. It's all redistribution of wealth, you are just trying to present it in a different way because it harms Palin's credibility and consistency.

[DevilMinder]

It's not that Palin was a strong candidate or Christie. I was more lamenting that fact that the Repubs don't have an interesting or solid enough candidate to run away with the next election. Now we are going to be treated to a nail biter that shouldn't really exist if the public is so apathetic with Obama as claimed.

[MantaRay]

Some pretty awful, mean-spirited things have been said about Palin and her family by Bill Maher, David Letterman and others. There is no excuse for it. You don't like her brand of conservatism, fine. That's not an invitation to say nasty, personal things ... or publish a disgraceful hit piece like this book Joe McGinniss wrote.

What brand of conservatism? saying one thing and doing another? Record in Alaska? Didn't she quit?

No offense Jerry, but Fox News even laughs at her now. Palin is no longer under Roger Ailes "favored" status.

[Jerrydevil]

No offense Jerry, but Fox News even laughs at her now. Palin is no longer under Roger Ailes "favored" status.

No offense taken.

[Devils Dose]

365 days to go until the election. Still no clear favorite for the GOP nomination, and no clear favorite for the general election. It will be interesting to see what factors Americans use to choose.

[squishyx]

365 days to go until the election. Still no clear favorite for the GOP nomination, and no clear favorite for the general election. It will be interesting to see what factors Americans use to choose.

When all the dust clears I still think it's going to be Romney. The other candidates seem to crumble inside of a month when they get the spotlight and when all is said and done Republicans desire to get Obama out will outweigh their wishy-washy views on Mitt.

That said, its still really early we haven't even had a caucus or primary yet. I wouldn't expect a thinner herd at this point. Clinton and Obama took it down to months before the election.

[devilsfan26]

It would be pretty sad if we already had a clear favorite for the GOP. The election is a year away and without a single vote cast for anything yet the media and party leaders have already narrowed it down to a handful of choices for us, pretty lame. I never thought I would vote for a Republican but I really hope Ron Paul wins even though I totally disagree with him on some things, the rest are all just typical corporate party puppets.

[devilsadvoc8]

This is shaping up to be a year of finding out who you think will screw up the least and going in that direction. Not one of these clowns gives me any hope. What I've now come to realize is that it is congress that is the problem. Term limits are the only answer but these selfish, egotistical a-holes will never do it since it runs contrary to their purpose in office which is to feed their wallets and ego at our expense.

[squishyx]

...Term limits are the only answer but these selfish, egotistical a-holes will never do it since it runs contrary to their purpose in office which is to feed their wallets and ego at our expense.

I really agree with this statement. I've pitched a similar idea before where every term is increased by 50% but they are not allowed to run for consecutive terms. One of the problems (especially the house) is that they only get to govern for about 1-2 years before they need to start watching the re-election clock. Does anyone think Obama would have dilly dalllied around the debt ceiling problem if this was his second term? I don't, I think he would have threatened to overrule congress and the problem would have been solved in a week one way or the other. Especially with todays 24/7 news cycles it seems everyone is always in campaign mode and the only ways I can think to end that is either term limits, or putting federal restrictions (oh noes) on campaigning and debates and whatnot.

[Jerrydevil]

Yeah, I think it will be Romney when the smoke clears. But I also agree that the media tries to pick a winner before votes are cast, and I don't care for that.

[CMONPETEYD]

I may be in the minority, but the way that Gingrich has been gaining steam, i wouldn't be surprised to see him be the nomination. in 2007 McCain was 3rd place in December and he was the republican nominee.

No one has really commented on GIngrich's plans or ideas, all of which i think are better than what other people are presenting. The negative on him is his past, and that is a hurdle to get past, but with the past Obama had with Bill Ayers, Reverend Jerimiah Wright, ETC, anything is possible.

I really agree with this statement. I've pitched a similar idea before where every term is increased by 50% but they are not allowed to run for consecutive terms. One of the problems (especially the house) is that they only get to govern for about 1-2 years before they need to start watching the re-election clock. Does anyone think Obama would have dilly dalllied around the debt ceiling problem if this was his second term? I don't, I think he would have threatened to overrule congress and the problem would have been solved in a week one way or the other. Especially with todays 24/7 news cycles it seems everyone is always in campaign mode and the only ways I can think to end that is either term limits, or putting federal restrictions (oh noes) on campaigning and debates and whatnot.

Obama has been campaigning for 6 months now. Do you think the American Jobs Act was really serious legislation. He didn't even have full democratic support for it. Yet he just goes around the country demonizing congress for not getting Stimulus V3 passed.

[devilsfan26]

Term limits would be a great start, my district has had the same Congressman for 20 years, but we also need more choices on the ballot to better represent a variety of views and also to keep each other competitive. All Obama had to do to be elected president was appear better than Bush, and all any of the GOP choices have to do to be elected president is appear better than Obama. Nobody has to actually be a good choice, they just have to avoid being the worst. Another big thing they need to stop is gerrymandering, it's no wonder people are in Congress for decades when their districts are intentionally drawn to eliminate any competition.

[Daniel]

Used to believe in term limits for members of Congress, but now I'm not so sure. Basically, it gives constituents a particular district/state the ability to maintain their influence over national policy through their representative, or at least gives them that choice. Basically, if people in a district/state want to keep electing the same guy, then so be it.

It's different at the presidential level. First, presidents are term limited by constitutional mandate. Second, so much power is concentrated in the executive branch, especially these days. Allowing a president to potentially serve for life, leads us down the Hugo Chavez route.

[devilsfan26]

Yeah, I think it will be Romney when the smoke clears. But I also agree that the media tries to pick a winner before votes are cast, and I don't care for that.

It is blatantly obvious the media has a vast amount of power in this, look at how little coverage Ron Paul is getting despite polling very well.

[devilsfan26]

Used to believe in term limits for members of Congress, but now I'm not so sure. Basically, it gives constituents a particular district/state the ability to maintain their influence over national policy through their representative, or at least gives them that choice. Basically, if people in a district/state want to keep electing the same guy, then so be it.

It's different at the presidential level. First, presidents are term limited by constitutional mandate. Second, so much power is concentrated in the executive branch, especially these days. Allowing a president to potentially serve for life, leads us down the Hugo Chavez route.

It may be fine if we actually had a real choice, but when every election is between Coke and Pepsi (or some elections just Coke and no Pepsi or vice versa) the winner is not an accurate representation of what the people want. There are millions of people who vote for one party or the other just because they don't want to see the other party in office, there are millions of people who are torn on which side to choose because they agree with both sides on some things and disagree with both on others, there are millions of people who hold a position that neither party represents. If both major parties had to meet the same requirements as third parties and independents to get on the ballot, it would be a start, as well as changing this completely ineffective voting system to range voting.

[Daniel]

It may be fine if we actually had a real choice, but when every election is between Coke and Pepsi (or some elections just Coke and no Pepsi or vice versa) the winner is not an accurate representation of what the people want. There are millions of people who vote for one party or the other just because they don't want to see the other party in office, there are millions of people who are torn on which side to choose because they agree with both sides on some things and disagree with both on others, there are millions of people who hold a position that neither party represents. If both major parties had to meet the same requirements as third parties and independents to get on the ballot, it would be a start, as well as changing this completely ineffective voting system to range voting.

Term limits won't change that.

[devilsfan26]

Term limits won't change that.

You were saying that if people want to keep electing the same person, they should be able to. My point is that many times, the people that get elected do not accurately represent what the people want, they just prefer him over the one other choice that they have. At least term limits would keep things fresh and open up the possibility of candidates who are actually better within the same party getting a chance.

[squishyx]

It is blatantly obvious the media has a vast amount of power in this, look at how little coverage Ron Paul is getting despite polling very well.

Your statement seems to contradict itself in that Paul is polling well despite "lack of media coverage". I'm not sure if I agree with that but I'm not sure you really prove your point with this example.