PALIN BACK?
By David Vance On December 31st, 2011
As the race for the Republican presidential nomination hots up, the candidates have been dropping hints about their possible running mates. Newt Gingrich today said he would ‘certainly’ consider asking Sarah Palin to join him on the ballot, while Mitt Romney was accompanied on a campaign stop this morning by Chris Christie, the popular Governor of New Jersey. Both those GOP heavyweights were thought of as potential candidates for the top job before announcing that they did not intend to run.
Sorry, there was no one more supportive of Palin than me until it became quite clear that she is all about …herself. Yes, her instincts on many issues are good and I would align with them BUT to be honest I would be just as happy never to hear from her again. The moment comes and then it goes. Plus, I don’t think Gingrich will beat Romney, be that a good thing or otherwise.
Anyone disagree with this? Am I being unfair to Palin? Has Gingrich actually got a chance?
Oh David, La Palin certainly broke your heart didn’t she ? Is she never to be brought back into your affections .
As Oscar Wilde said “Each man kills the thing he loves…
lol
Love to see newt/palin. couldn’t think of a better guaranteed loss than romney/christie.
My personal choice for newt would be Ryan. Don’t count this race over, Iowa is a joke Paul or Santorim will win it, New Hampshire is an open primary so democrats can come out and vote during the republican primary which is why Romney will win it.
Neither state is reflective of what is really going to happen. The White House and the main stream press want Romney at the head of the ticket no more than 25% of republicans do
Romney’s lead in New Hampshire is bigger amomng Republicans than among Independents.
Troll -
I see.
Four years ago Iowa was mega-important, so important its importance couldn’t be overstated. Today, with Ron Paul leading, it’s a joke and can be ignored.
You carry on believing what you’re told to believe.
no Iowa allows anyone to caucus, the ronbots have invaded in force. If you pay enough people to caucus for you you can win. Paul is quite rich enough to pull it off, and I have never given Iowa any weight, so your link means crap
Ross first thing you have got to learn is there is no such thing as an independent, all they are is democrats who don’t want to register that way.
This race has a long way to go, I will tell you whoever wins the nomination will have my support. Even Romney or Paul would be better than Obama, anyone will do
Iowa’s process is creepy. The state is unrepresentative of the US. as Savage has said, it is a state of fat old farmers on agriculture subsidies. Romney will win, but the process will remain a disgrace.
The process will give an over emphasis of the support forRon Paul. His supporters are not paid- that is a canard. They are highly motivated. They are a Cult.. You’ll sooner have a straight conversation twitch a Scientologist than you’ll have one with a Paulie.
Working people with families will generally resent a process where thy are asked to commit to a four hour process where they are asked to speak publicly about their choice. The Ron Paul people have nothing else to do. They’d spend four days at a caucus if that was what was called for.
Troll
You are deeply uninformed. Thee are many independents and many of them tilt conservative on lots of issues
The big problem with Iowa for me is that there is no secret ballot, which makes voters highly susceptible to peer pressure.
Phantom the fact that they lean conservative on “some” issues is why they are registered independent, but the numbers show the majority of independents vote democrat
and Pauls supporters aren’t given a paycheck, just room and board, which is the same thing. Most cultists aren’t paid in money
When you look at the parade of numbskulls who ran for the GOP nomination this time can you wonder?
And which report said that anyway?
Room and board s NOT the same thing
yes it is
do the research on voting trends of independents
No you made the statement and as usual probably made it up
no phantom, unlike you I don’t need to make facts up. your just to lazy to check
Phantom – Ron Paul is a fully-qualified medical doctor. He’s no numbskull and, unlike the others, is most definitely not of the Establishment.
Ron Paul is a kook and fraud, he decries earmarks yet has attached hundreds of them bills, while voting against the bill knowing the bill will pass.
He gets his cake and then says “but I didn’t vote for it” he is a kook, a quack, a racist, neo-nazi supported scam artist, career politician.
Even if we take Paul at his word that he didn’t know the contents of his newsletters, then he is too naive to be President. He is not a good man.
Paul is a career politician who brought his son into the rackets with him as a mad man also, yet he is not part of it.
Got it.
got what? you have to start making sense when you post, or have you already started your New Years Eve Drinking?
You miss what was said
David: you say “no thanks” – I say, “yes, please.”
no I didn’t miss anything, first you accuse me of making shit up, and your comment about rand paul is out of the blue, you’ve obviously been drinking
I’m with you Patty
I can sort of see the appeal of Ron Paul when mainstream Republicans are coming up with retarded crap like this from Iowa Congressman Steve King:
Ron Paul isn’t the answer imho but there is a problem with the world outlook of many in the Republican Party.
Troll
I as agreeing with your 158
Stop sniffing Drano
—
King goes too far but the unconstitutional Ron Paul would not defend this country and has contempt for our military alliances
Phantom – I’ll keep it simple for you and Troll. Ron Paul and his son are both qualified medical doctors who, after having worked in the real world beyond the political bubble, were each elected to Congress. The fact that they are professionals in a demanding field outside of politics is exactly what is needed in the beltway. Why don’t you state exactly what professionals should NOT be allowed to campaign for Congress? The fact is that politics is too important to be left to the bought-and-paid-for clique which is the political class. Look at where it has got the US/UK.
They’re both traitors and bums whose weaknesses outweigh their strengths by a hundred to one
‘traitors and bums’
Blimey Phantom that’s a bit strong even for you. I am beginning to think Troll’s right and you’ve started your NYE boozing early
No I was at the gym at 8am and am rocking away doing chores now
But no more Mr Nice Guy with these guys! Time for some straight talk I say
Relax Phantom – Surely as you keep saying, the Ron Paul’s of this world haven’t got a hope in hell of winning the presidency, so why get so angry at them ?
Phantom -
I would welcome straight talk.
You say that Ron Paul is a career politician. No, he’s not. He has spent as much of his adult life outside of politics as in it. In the 1970s he was in private practice. For twelve years in the 1980s and 90s he was in private practice. He’s the antithesis of the Beltway stooge, corporate yes-man, career politician.
You decribe him as the ‘unconstitutional Ron Paul’. I would ask what you mean, but I know you simply made it up, couldn’t answer and would drop the straight talk for your usual body swerve in any case.
I understand why he makes Americans uncomfortable. Many wrap themselves in a comfort blanket of myths and stories about their founding, about how they are a ntion of rugged individualists who hate small government. Of course they don’t hate small government. When a real man of liberty shows up the big talkers about small gummint start getting the vapours.
When he explains that war is the health of the state, out come the poseys. When he promises to abolish five federal gummint departments, the big talkers about small gummint come over all faint. When he promises to adhere strictly to the constitution, the big talkers about small gummint and the constitution line up to insult him.
They’re big talkers and big bullshitters.
I’m actually not angry. To some extent disappointed that -some- decent people have so given up that they consider a guy like this for the most important job in the world.
once in awhile one needs to speak truth to counter bullshit.
This guy is the worst major candidate that this country has seen in fifty years. I do not think that he wil win any primaries much less the nomination.
Actually he has done some good- Romney looks very presidential when compared with him
The first constitutional duty of a president is to defend the nation.
He would not do that.
He would not respect out European and Asian alliances, dos not recognize threats as they exist, and is utterly unqualified to be Commander in Chief.
It’s good to see that Gingrich has a sense of humour.
One more joke candidate (Bachmann) will withdraw next week. It’s not so long since she was being talked up by some of this parish.
Phantom -
“The first constitutional duty of a president is to defend the nation. He would not do that.”
Whoever told you that is a liar.
Your memory is a terribly fragile thing. I’ve told you before that Ron Paul certainly would defend the US. The difference between him and you is that he realises that a global empire weakens your nation.
Phantom – as concerns your European alliances i.e. NATO (North Atlantic treaty Organisation), what is the threat which NATO counters?
Phantom – has the cat got your tongue?
Ron Paul is a liar. He says that he would defend the US but his entire world view and the preponderance of his statements indicate that he would not.
NATO’s mission did not go away when the USSR went away. Current and potential threats include Russia, Iran, and Muslim terror generally.
Europe has underfunded its militariy with NATO. Without NATO it would spend even less, and would be much less organized, which would be bad for security in Europe, especially a Europe that no longer is held together by the EU.
THereare other reasons but I give you these.
Phantom – would you describe the Russian threat? I’m a lot nearer Russia than you are and I perceive no threat. Apart from RT and Max Keiser by-passing the stranglehold of corporate media on the opinions of the American public, I just can’t see the threat to the US.
“Europe has underfunded its militariy with NATO. Without NATO it would spend even less”
Eh? NATO induces European nations to underfund their militaries, no NATO would induce them to underfund them even more?
The first question is by what criteria ‘underfunding’ is measured. If it’s against the ruinously bloated transfer of American wealth to American military contractors then yes, it’s underfunding. But that’s against American standards of military spending, the greatest single state socialist redistribution programme in the history of man.
The second point is quite clear: American military spending has enabled European nations to cower beneath the umbrella. Without NATO these nations would increase military spending. They’d also find a degree of independence unacceptable to Washington as a result of such a responsibility, which is the point of that American umbrella.
Pete
Silly nonsense. You waste what talent you have.
Even relatively minor affairs in your backyard ( stopping the Seb geocide, Libya ) were only possible with very major US support. And no I am not wishing to debate whether those were correct actions. ( I think they were. You would have let the massacres run wild as thy were internal and therefore moral )
The US has in fact encouraged European political and military integration. an informed person would have known that.
—
Russia attacked Georgia In 2008. It is still a bully. A bully that has not forgotten the days when it owned the neighbor countries.
And NATO has never existed only for benefit of the US. It is a two way street.
If you want out of NATO don’t debate me. Tell the UK all about it.
The countries that were idragooned into the Warsaw Pact against their will iwho are now voluntarily in NATO may also wish to hear your nostrums about how NATO is not needed, how it exists only to serve the US, and how Rusisia is no longer a threat to any neighbor.
So you two Ron Paul supporters would dismantle NATO. Daphne please read carefully and tell me if you still think that a President Paul would honor our military alliances. Thereis much evidence that he would not despite recent words.
Yes, I think you are being a little unfair on Ms Palin, David.
I view her (politically speaking) in a much the same way as I view you, DV. What I mean by that is that Sarah’s true calling is to be a political commentator, a voice in the wilderness, pointing out the way things should be. Just like you do. But just as you found out yourself, being a political commentator does not necessarily translate into votes at the ballot box. Your own political vocation is here, expressing ideas and opinions which will influence people in the way they vote. That is also how I see Sarah Palin. Relax, you’re in good company!
Tom
I think your only valid point here was to claim that Sarah Palin was “a voice in the wilderness”
She’s a pretty awful commentator . Her remaining fans think that every word she says is Gospel, but her vapid gotcha comments don’t speak well to a broader audience.
When Fox cuts her loose she can still do those Reality shows, which do have a cable audience for her.