In the latest Gallup survey of the potential Republican presidential field, the Atlanta businessman and former conservative radio host registered the most passionate support of any candidate in the race. His “positive intensity” score — in other words, the people who like him — is nearly twice as high as the average for the rest of his likely rivals.
The downside: Only about a third of those polled actually know who he is.
Mr. Cain, who is black, drew thousands of supporters to a weekend rally in Atlanta to formally announce his bid, quoting Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech to make the case that a win would be the ultimate vindication for the Civil Rights leader.
I'm just at a point where I'm checking to see if anyone is really running this year. I'm not sure why there are so few Republicans who even seem to be considering it.
I had hoped that Bobby Jindal would be the nominee. Among those likely to be available, I'd vote for Tim Pawlenty at this point.
The field of candidates the next time around should be better, perhaps including Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie, for example. They'd be potential choices for vice president in 2012 as well.
By the way, I think a factor Republicans should take into account, which I haven't heard mentioned much so far, is breaking with the past. It would be to the Republicans' advantage to have a candidate who didn't run in 2008. There are a lot of reasons to not support Mitt Romney and to hope that Sarah Palin won't run, but that's one of them. It's to the Republicans' advantage to distance themselves to some extent from the 2008 campaign and the Bush administration. And newer candidates tend to attract more attention. Tim Pawlenty most likely would get more consideration from non-Republican voters than somebody like Mitt Romney would. The same could be said of other candidates, like Herman Cain, but I think Pawlenty has the best balance of conservatism, electibility, and other factors among them.
I really like Bobby Jindal too. I haven't closely followed the race so far, but perhaps he'd be a nice VP nominee at this point?
I'd support Pawlenty.
Perhaps Cain too. But, while I believe he's in remission, Cain had stage IV colon and liver cancer. I would think this could potentially raise some health concerns among voters. Even if the health concerns aren't legit, they could be perceived otherwise. I suppose if he had a strong VP nominee then it might ease some concerns.
If possible, I think a Pawlenty-Jindal ticket would be nice.
I've collected some notes on Pawlenty, and generally I like him a lot -- he is a Roman Catholic turned evangelical -- but he's made some mistakes already in his campaign. For example, George Will has quoted him as saying, "I would tell Gadhafi he's got X number of days to get his affairs in order and go or we're going to go get him."
Will continued, "such bluster is not presidential and is not Pawlenty's real persona."
Both of these statements fall within the scope of simply "being honest," and there's every possibility that these are just gaffes that come with being a politician in an unfamiliar realm, but they may also come back to haunt him later, if there are more of the same.
There's no one to stand against the flow of corruption. George W. was terrible. Obama, well. We need a true leader, someone who has integrity and understands how this nation was founded, and appreciates the blessings from god in this country.
I shall look into seeing who Herman is, for I have no knowledge of him at all.
I like what little I've seen so far of Cain. I would probably lean most toward Christie, if he actually ran (he's been adamant that he's not going to though).
As far as Pawlenty making gaffs...well, I think many people are getting to the point of thinking that just some random guy walking on the sidewalk would do a better job than anyone who actually runs for office, so those types of gaffs might not be overly hurtful to him.
Ultimately, as long as the Republicans don't do something stupid like having someone with the moral fortitude of Ahnold run (thankfully, he can't run for president), then I'll hold my nose and swallow a lot just to get someone other than The Omighty One in office.
Not sure if JFK was a true Reagan type, but that aside, as for a Reagan type: Sarah Palin is a Reagan type. She just scares you all because the media mess with her so much. "Oh, my goodness, what will the media do if she is the candidate?" Who cares. A drunk lama could beat Obama in 2012.
Media opposition isn't Palin's only problem. Even if it was, there are other conservatives running, so why choose her? You tell us that fear of the media is a bad reason for opposing her. Is a desire to defy the media or get revenge against them (and/or other opponents of Palin) a good reason for supporting her? If you agree with me that it isn't, then what's the reason for supporting her rather than one of the alternatives?
She made a lot of mistakes when she ran in 2008. She doesn't give the Republicans a break with the past, but instead reminds voters of the Republicans they voted against in 2008. She's a poor public speaker. She doesn't have much experience, and she quit as governor of Alaska before completing a term. She has persistently high negative numbers in the polling I've seen. She's a sort of female Dan Quayle. As with Quayle, some of the problems are her fault and some aren't. For example, I suspect that a lot of her negative polling has to do with the guilt of many women who have had abortions and the men who supported them in that decision. If Palin had murdered her son by having him aborted, she'd probably be more popular with a lot of people. That's unjust, but it's reality. We live in a highly immature society in which conservatives are a minority. That's why people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama keep getting elected. (And Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.) The Republicans will have a lot going for them in 2012: unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc. The desire for change that favored the Democrats in 2008 will favor the Republicans in 2012. Palin would have a good chance of winning, but a significantly less good chance than some of the alternatives.
Concerning the awkward comments Tim Pawlenty sometimes makes, I've heard that criticism from other sources as well, and I agree that it's a problem. A lot of my experience with Pawlenty has come from reading his comments rather than hearing them. I listened to him speak in 2008, and my impression was that he wasn't a good public speaker at that point. What I've heard more recently, which hasn't been much yet, suggests that he's improved significantly. But he does sometimes make the sort of comments John Bugay referred to. Sarah Palin does that as well, and I think she has other communication problems that make her worse than Pawlenty overall in that context.
This is an area where Mitt Romney does well. He's an above average speaker, he's a good debater, he's quick on his feet, he's highly knowledgeable of the issues, and he comes across as an intelligent person. It's been about a quarter of a century since the Republicans last had a good communicator as their candidate. We've had more than twenty years of the elder Bush, Dole, the younger Bush, and McCain. In that context, Romney has a lot of appeal. I think that's one of the reasons why he's still so high in the polling.
In my last post, I mentioned how poorly Republican presidential candidates have done in recent decades. Yet, they've won a few times. It's encouraging to think of how much better they might do with better communicators as their candidates. People like Dole and McCain shouldn't have needed better communication skills in order to beat opponents as corrupt and wrong on the issues as Clinton and Obama. It's to the public's shame that they voted the way they did. But given the immaturity of the society, the Republicans probably would do significantly better with better communicators. Pawlenty seems to be better than the other recent Republican nominees in this context, though he's below Reagan's level. The same could be said of some of the potential candidates for future campaigns, like Jindal and Rubio. It would be hard for things to get worse than they were in 2008. We've had more than twenty years of candidates like Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain. This is an area where things will surely get better for the Republicans.
>Media opposition isn't Palin's only problem. Even if it was, there are other conservatives running, so why choose her?
She's the only one with balls.
>You tell us that fear of the media is a bad reason for opposing her. Is a desire to defy the media or get revenge against them (and/or other opponents of Palin) a good reason for supporting her?
I have to moderate my language in my responses to this. Personally, I don't care about getting revenge on the media. Why would I? I don't give a ___ about the leftist media or leftist academia, or leftist Hollywood, or any leftist ____ you got. Just don't give a ____.
>If you agree with me that it isn't, then what's the reason for supporting her rather than one of the alternatives?
She's the only man running.
>She made a lot of mistakes when she ran in 2008.
So does everybody. Who cares.
>She doesn't give the Republicans a break with the past, but instead reminds voters of the Republicans they voted against in 2008.
Who cares?
>She's a poor public speaker.
She's an electric public speaker. Honesty, real courage, and knowing which way is up are virtues you're not factoring.
>She doesn't have much experience, and she quit as governor of Alaska before completing a term.
She wisely gave the seat to her Republican Lt. Gov. when the left pestered her with endless nuisance suits. She doesn't believe she is bigger than the office, or that the office needs her. You're parroting a leftist line.
>She has persistently high negative numbers in the polling I've seen.
Who cares? Vote for Obama.
>She's a sort of female Dan Quayle.
Not even close.
>As with Quayle, some of the problems are her fault and some aren't. For example, I suspect that a lot of her negative polling has to do with the guilt of many women who have had abortions and the men who supported them in that decision. If Palin had murdered her son by having him aborted, she'd probably be more popular with a lot of people. That's unjust, but it's reality.
Palin's a born again Christian. People hate born again Christians. End of story on negative poll numbers. If it bothers you vote for Obama.
>We live in a highly immature society in which conservatives are a minority.
Conservatives are a rather large majority in America.
>That's why people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama keep getting elected.
By running to the right, and usually getting help from special circumstances (Ross Perot, first black president, etc.).
>(And Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.)
Bush won the election.
>The Republicans will have a lot going for them in 2012: unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc. The desire for change that favored the Democrats in 2008 will favor the Republicans in 2012. Palin would have a good chance of winning, but a significantly less good chance than some of the alternatives.
Who cares if a coward, Washington-pious RINO wins. The result is always in favor of the devil. Palin would fight the devil every day in office. She's also got what people like yourself don't have any understanding of: political skills. You can't teach it.
Basically I don't care about any of the candidates because they are all squishes that will get run over the moment they take their place in the midst of the Beast. Bachmann has some of what Palin has, she isn't a national icon though. Cain is not a politician. Don't underestimate political skills. What you think of as political skills aren't what get people elected or move masses of people.
Palin is a rebuke to all the men in America. Step aside, cowards. You fear man. Palin fears only God. I don't want another man-fearer in the White House.
c.t., I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really seem to be given to knee-jerk responses that you haven't really thought through.
Palin is not a man, she's a woman. And while everybody makes mistakes, the kinds of gaffes she has made are, as Will said, "not presidential." And as was noted above, Herman Cain has come through horrific illnesses. He exhibits a tremendous amount of courage.
We are living in times when we not only have people who have courage and enthusiasm, but also the ability to think through very complex financial and political difficulties that we're going to be facing.
It is very strange to hear you say that Jason is "parotting a leftist line." Jason is probably one of the most thoughtful (in the sense of thinking) persons you will encounter.
Palin's a born again Christian. People hate born again Christians. End of story on negative poll numbers.
This is not true -- America has a huge percentage of Christians; not all of them are in the same kind of tradition that you may be from, but that doesn't negate the fact that large numbers of people are going to welcome a thoughtful Christian candidate, who can thoughtfully express his or her faith in ways that lead to wise public policies.
John F. Kennedy was a war hero, and a true leader. He made mistakes like Ronald Reagan did as well.
My thought was to have a strong leader, a Churchill type.
Sarah Palin for me would be a poor president. She had a great speech last year when she came on with john McCain, but then she showed that she had little depth. I believe she is our sister in Christ, and would be a good governor, for she did well in Alaska.
I like someone who speaks from the heart, with a vibrancy and honesty that is less political and more principled.
Here's hopin' Gains is that man.
Have a God blessed weekend Triablogue Team, and Lord's day, and Memorial Day.
I would think that your "large majority" of conservatives would be reflected in the polling. It isn't. I'd think it would be reflected in the size of our government and our national debt, among other things. It isn't. Is it likely that a nation with a large majority of conservatives would so frequently give so much authority to people like Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama? If "Palin is a rebuke to all the men in America", as you claim, then she must be rebuking every American man affiliated with her political campaigns, every American man who voted for her, your church's pastors, etc. You should explain how you supposedly know that all of those men are being rebuked by Palin. How did you come to know that every pastor, every male serving in the military, fireman, policeman, missionary, evangelist, etc. is a "coward"? I'm also wondering how you supposedly know that "Palin fears only God". Do you think her relationship with Roman Catholics and Mormons, for example, reflects "fearing only God"? Do you think she'd get to such a high position in the current political atmosphere, an atmosphere that you've criticized yourself, if she was as radically different from other people as you're suggesting? If one of Palin's opponents had been a running mate to John McCain, what would you have made of that? And I wonder where Palin's "political skills" and ability to "move the masses" were during the 2008 campaign. Or in today's polling numbers. But your response to her negative polling numbers is "who cares". If you want to take a "who cares" approach toward electability, then why not start a write-in campaign for one of your cousins who's even more conservative than Palin? It doesn't matter if you'll be the only person voting for him. Then again, maybe there isn't anybody more conservative than Palin. She'll "fight the devil every day". She's not a "squish" like other Republicans. When liberals "pester" her, she quits before serving out a full term, like "a man".
If you want to keep participating in these threads, improve the quality of your posts. You're wasting everybody's time.
>I would think that your "large majority" of conservatives would be reflected in the polling. It isn't. I'd think it would be reflected in the size of our government and our national debt, among other things. It isn't. Is it likely that a nation with a large majority of conservatives would so frequently give so much authority to people like Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama?
We're a center-right country, overwhelmingly. The hard left that controls the Democrat Party is at most still less than 20%. They have all the shamelessness of the children of the devil, the advantage of not having to hold themselves to any standard, the untiring desire to defile that the devil has, the lack of interest in anything else but political power and propaganda and infiltrating institutions, taking them over, etc., etc. Americans tend to have lives and the work of the world to tend to. This is an old political story.
>If "Palin is a rebuke to all the men in America", as you claim, then she must be rebuking every American man affiliated with her political campaigns, every American man who voted for her, your church's pastors, etc. You should explain how you supposedly know that all of those men are being rebuked by Palin. How did you come to know that every pastor, every male serving in the military, fireman, policeman, missionary, evangelist, etc. is a "coward"?
You're being silly, Jason. If I held your statements to such literal standards you'd say I was being silly. You know the point I was making, and it's a legitimate point.
>I'm also wondering how you supposedly know that "Palin fears only God". Do you think her relationship with Roman Catholics and Mormons, for example, reflects "fearing only God"? Do you think she'd get to such a high position in the current political atmosphere, an atmosphere that you've criticized yourself, if she was as radically different from other people as you're suggesting? If one of Palin's opponents had been a running mate to John McCain, what would you have made of that?
I'd say you're applying a scale of perfection, but you're not even doing that. This is shallow. If you don't know what it means when I say Palin fear only God and no man just leave it at that.
>And I wonder where Palin's "political skills" and ability to "move the masses" were during the 2008 campaign.
She wasn't running for President. The dead carp at the top of that ticket had something to do with losing that election.
>Or in today's polling numbers. But your response to her negative polling numbers is "who cares".
That's because they are ephemeral. And by 'who cares' I'm saying: "Who cares." If people want Obama for another four devastating years I can't stop them.
>If you want to take a "who cares" approach toward electability, then why not start a write-in campaign for one of your cousins who's even more conservative than Palin? It doesn't matter if you'll be the only person voting for him. Then again, maybe there isn't anybody more conservative than Palin. She'll "fight the devil every day". She's not a "squish" like other Republicans. When liberals "pester" her, she quits before serving out a full term, like "a man".
She outgrew that office. Handing it to her Lt. Gov. is hardly some kind of character flaw or crime. Just apparently easy material for cheap shots. Again, you take the Olbermann line, fine. Work that.
>If you want to keep participating in these threads, improve the quality of your posts. You're wasting everybody's time.
You claim that we aren't supposed to take you as literally as I did, but you aren't explaining how we should interpret you. I don't see anything in your comments or their context that would tell us what you supposedly meant to say. And you aren't providing much of an argument for your position. You make a lot of assertions, but without much supporting evidence. And evidence that contradicts what you seem to be saying, like polling and voting data, is dismissed with a similar lack of supporting argumentation. Why should people want to interact with somebody who seems so uninterested in communicating clearly and so uninterested in supporting his claims?
It's a Tea Party thing. We kind of don't care about the usual considerations. Look what the usual considerations have gotten us. I'll take any Republican over the satanic left. But at this point the patience has run out. The devil's children work any Republican that gets into office, usually through all the concerns being expressed here. "You can't possibly... Well what will they think if... If we do that imagine how it will play to the..." My goodness, who cares at this point. They have defecated on just about every institution and important element of what makes this country work. The phrase the worst political class in the history of this nation includes Republicans. So a Palin shows up and you're all, "The media says we should be embarrassed by such a person, therefore..."
There is basically nothing the left can't do. I just rejoice (and mark my words, they are spoken deliberately) I just rejoice - rejoice - that hell exists and that every last leftist that has spent their time loving what is evil and hating what is good and acting on such wickedness will spend eternity in indescribable pain. I rejoice in that. It makes me feel joy. And the fact that I won't even have to remember their filthy, wicked souls makes it even better.
The "usual considerations" I just asked you about were things like clarity and evidence. If you aren't concerned about such things, then you don't have much to say or much that's worth listening to.
Your latest claims about my views and the views of other Palin critics are about as ridiculous as your earlier comments. And your distorted view of Hell and those who go there corresponds well to your distorted view of politics. Find somewhere else to post.
Of course, c.t. does illustrate the problems that we'll have if Palin enters the race. She has a strong 10% of the country behind her, who would rather crash and burn than to support anyone other than Palin. If she gets into the race, she does not have enough support to win it, but she has more than enough support to ensure Obama gets re-elected on the divided vote.
I’ve deleted your latest post. You aren’t permitted to post at Triablogue any longer. You were banned in the past, and you recently started posting again. I told you, in my last reply, to find somewhere else to post. You're banned.
The Herman-ator Gains Steam
My picks at this point are:
ReplyDelete1) Michele Bachmann
2) Herman Cain
3) Tim Pawlenty
That's in order of preference.
I'm just at a point where I'm checking to see if anyone is really running this year. I'm not sure why there are so few Republicans who even seem to be considering it.
ReplyDeleteI had hoped that Bobby Jindal would be the nominee. Among those likely to be available, I'd vote for Tim Pawlenty at this point.
ReplyDeleteThe field of candidates the next time around should be better, perhaps including Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie, for example. They'd be potential choices for vice president in 2012 as well.
By the way, I think a factor Republicans should take into account, which I haven't heard mentioned much so far, is breaking with the past. It would be to the Republicans' advantage to have a candidate who didn't run in 2008. There are a lot of reasons to not support Mitt Romney and to hope that Sarah Palin won't run, but that's one of them. It's to the Republicans' advantage to distance themselves to some extent from the 2008 campaign and the Bush administration. And newer candidates tend to attract more attention. Tim Pawlenty most likely would get more consideration from non-Republican voters than somebody like Mitt Romney would. The same could be said of other candidates, like Herman Cain, but I think Pawlenty has the best balance of conservatism, electibility, and other factors among them.
ReplyDeleteI really like Bobby Jindal too. I haven't closely followed the race so far, but perhaps he'd be a nice VP nominee at this point?
ReplyDeleteI'd support Pawlenty.
Perhaps Cain too. But, while I believe he's in remission, Cain had stage IV colon and liver cancer. I would think this could potentially raise some health concerns among voters. Even if the health concerns aren't legit, they could be perceived otherwise. I suppose if he had a strong VP nominee then it might ease some concerns.
If possible, I think a Pawlenty-Jindal ticket would be nice.
I've collected some notes on Pawlenty, and generally I like him a lot -- he is a Roman Catholic turned evangelical -- but he's made some mistakes already in his campaign. For example, George Will has quoted him as saying, "I would tell Gadhafi he's got X number of days to get his affairs in order and go or we're going to go get him."
ReplyDeleteWill continued, "such bluster is not presidential and is not Pawlenty's real persona."
He also supported a regional cap and trade tax, though later he said it was "the wrong approach."
Both of these statements fall within the scope of simply "being honest," and there's every possibility that these are just gaffes that come with being a politician in an unfamiliar realm, but they may also come back to haunt him later, if there are more of the same.
There's no one to stand against the flow of corruption. George W. was terrible. Obama, well. We need a true leader, someone who has integrity and understands how this nation was founded, and appreciates the blessings from god in this country.
ReplyDeleteI shall look into seeing who Herman is, for I have no knowledge of him at all.
A JFK, Reagan type is know where in sight.
I like what little I've seen so far of Cain. I would probably lean most toward Christie, if he actually ran (he's been adamant that he's not going to though).
ReplyDeleteAs far as Pawlenty making gaffs...well, I think many people are getting to the point of thinking that just some random guy walking on the sidewalk would do a better job than anyone who actually runs for office, so those types of gaffs might not be overly hurtful to him.
Ultimately, as long as the Republicans don't do something stupid like having someone with the moral fortitude of Ahnold run (thankfully, he can't run for president), then I'll hold my nose and swallow a lot just to get someone other than The Omighty One in office.
>A JFK, Reagan type is know where in sight.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if JFK was a true Reagan type, but that aside, as for a Reagan type: Sarah Palin is a Reagan type. She just scares you all because the media mess with her so much. "Oh, my goodness, what will the media do if she is the candidate?" Who cares. A drunk lama could beat Obama in 2012.
c.t.,
ReplyDeleteMedia opposition isn't Palin's only problem. Even if it was, there are other conservatives running, so why choose her? You tell us that fear of the media is a bad reason for opposing her. Is a desire to defy the media or get revenge against them (and/or other opponents of Palin) a good reason for supporting her? If you agree with me that it isn't, then what's the reason for supporting her rather than one of the alternatives?
She made a lot of mistakes when she ran in 2008. She doesn't give the Republicans a break with the past, but instead reminds voters of the Republicans they voted against in 2008. She's a poor public speaker. She doesn't have much experience, and she quit as governor of Alaska before completing a term. She has persistently high negative numbers in the polling I've seen. She's a sort of female Dan Quayle. As with Quayle, some of the problems are her fault and some aren't. For example, I suspect that a lot of her negative polling has to do with the guilt of many women who have had abortions and the men who supported them in that decision. If Palin had murdered her son by having him aborted, she'd probably be more popular with a lot of people. That's unjust, but it's reality. We live in a highly immature society in which conservatives are a minority. That's why people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama keep getting elected. (And Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.) The Republicans will have a lot going for them in 2012: unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc. The desire for change that favored the Democrats in 2008 will favor the Republicans in 2012. Palin would have a good chance of winning, but a significantly less good chance than some of the alternatives.
The Republicans will have a lot going for them in 2012: unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff, all of it ;-)
One wants to say, "with friends like this ..."
Concerning the awkward comments Tim Pawlenty sometimes makes, I've heard that criticism from other sources as well, and I agree that it's a problem. A lot of my experience with Pawlenty has come from reading his comments rather than hearing them. I listened to him speak in 2008, and my impression was that he wasn't a good public speaker at that point. What I've heard more recently, which hasn't been much yet, suggests that he's improved significantly. But he does sometimes make the sort of comments John Bugay referred to. Sarah Palin does that as well, and I think she has other communication problems that make her worse than Pawlenty overall in that context.
ReplyDeleteThis is an area where Mitt Romney does well. He's an above average speaker, he's a good debater, he's quick on his feet, he's highly knowledgeable of the issues, and he comes across as an intelligent person. It's been about a quarter of a century since the Republicans last had a good communicator as their candidate. We've had more than twenty years of the elder Bush, Dole, the younger Bush, and McCain. In that context, Romney has a lot of appeal. I think that's one of the reasons why he's still so high in the polling.
In my last post, I mentioned how poorly Republican presidential candidates have done in recent decades. Yet, they've won a few times. It's encouraging to think of how much better they might do with better communicators as their candidates. People like Dole and McCain shouldn't have needed better communication skills in order to beat opponents as corrupt and wrong on the issues as Clinton and Obama. It's to the public's shame that they voted the way they did. But given the immaturity of the society, the Republicans probably would do significantly better with better communicators. Pawlenty seems to be better than the other recent Republican nominees in this context, though he's below Reagan's level. The same could be said of some of the potential candidates for future campaigns, like Jindal and Rubio. It would be hard for things to get worse than they were in 2008. We've had more than twenty years of candidates like Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain. This is an area where things will surely get better for the Republicans.
>Media opposition isn't Palin's only problem. Even if it was, there are other conservatives running, so why choose her?
ReplyDeleteShe's the only one with balls.
>You tell us that fear of the media is a bad reason for opposing her. Is a desire to defy the media or get revenge against them (and/or other opponents of Palin) a good reason for supporting her?
I have to moderate my language in my responses to this. Personally, I don't care about getting revenge on the media. Why would I? I don't give a ___ about the leftist media or leftist academia, or leftist Hollywood, or any leftist ____ you got. Just don't give a ____.
>If you agree with me that it isn't, then what's the reason for supporting her rather than one of the alternatives?
She's the only man running.
>She made a lot of mistakes when she ran in 2008.
So does everybody. Who cares.
>She doesn't give the Republicans a break with the past, but instead reminds voters of the Republicans they voted against in 2008.
Who cares?
>She's a poor public speaker.
She's an electric public speaker. Honesty, real courage, and knowing which way is up are virtues you're not factoring.
>She doesn't have much experience, and she quit as governor of Alaska before completing a term.
She wisely gave the seat to her Republican Lt. Gov. when the left pestered her with endless nuisance suits. She doesn't believe she is bigger than the office, or that the office needs her. You're parroting a leftist line.
>She has persistently high negative numbers in the polling I've seen.
Who cares? Vote for Obama.
>She's a sort of female Dan Quayle.
Not even close.
>As with Quayle, some of the problems are her fault and some aren't. For example, I suspect that a lot of her negative polling has to do with the guilt of many women who have had abortions and the men who supported them in that decision. If Palin had murdered her son by having him aborted, she'd probably be more popular with a lot of people. That's unjust, but it's reality.
Palin's a born again Christian. People hate born again Christians. End of story on negative poll numbers. If it bothers you vote for Obama.
>We live in a highly immature society in which conservatives are a minority.
Conservatives are a rather large majority in America.
>That's why people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama keep getting elected.
By running to the right, and usually getting help from special circumstances (Ross Perot, first black president, etc.).
>(And Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.)
Bush won the election.
>The Republicans will have a lot going for them in 2012: unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc. The desire for change that favored the Democrats in 2008 will favor the Republicans in 2012. Palin would have a good chance of winning, but a significantly less good chance than some of the alternatives.
Who cares if a coward, Washington-pious RINO wins. The result is always in favor of the devil. Palin would fight the devil every day in office. She's also got what people like yourself don't have any understanding of: political skills. You can't teach it.
Basically I don't care about any of the candidates because they are all squishes that will get run over the moment they take their place in the midst of the Beast. Bachmann has some of what Palin has, she isn't a national icon though. Cain is not a politician. Don't underestimate political skills. What you think of as political skills aren't what get people elected or move masses of people.
Palin is a rebuke to all the men in America. Step aside, cowards. You fear man. Palin fears only God. I don't want another man-fearer in the White House.
c.t., I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really seem to be given to knee-jerk responses that you haven't really thought through.
ReplyDeletePalin is not a man, she's a woman. And while everybody makes mistakes, the kinds of gaffes she has made are, as Will said, "not presidential." And as was noted above, Herman Cain has come through horrific illnesses. He exhibits a tremendous amount of courage.
We are living in times when we not only have people who have courage and enthusiasm, but also the ability to think through very complex financial and political difficulties that we're going to be facing.
It is very strange to hear you say that Jason is "parotting a leftist line." Jason is probably one of the most thoughtful (in the sense of thinking) persons you will encounter.
Palin's a born again Christian. People hate born again Christians. End of story on negative poll numbers.
This is not true -- America has a huge percentage of Christians; not all of them are in the same kind of tradition that you may be from, but that doesn't negate the fact that large numbers of people are going to welcome a thoughtful Christian candidate, who can thoughtfully express his or her faith in ways that lead to wise public policies.
John Bugay, I'm speaking in short hand intentionally, to show impatience with the usually political naivete of which you are demonstrating yourself.
ReplyDeleteThanks for telling me Palin is not a man, by the way.
"Not sure if JFK was a true Reagan type"
ReplyDeleteJohn F. Kennedy was a war hero, and a true leader. He made mistakes like Ronald Reagan did as well.
My thought was to have a strong leader, a Churchill type.
Sarah Palin for me would be a poor president. She had a great speech last year when she came on with john McCain, but then she showed that she had little depth. I believe she is our sister in Christ, and would be a good governor, for she did well in Alaska.
I like someone who speaks from the heart, with a vibrancy and honesty that is less political and more principled.
Here's hopin' Gains is that man.
Have a God blessed weekend Triablogue Team, and Lord's day, and Memorial Day.
c.t.,
ReplyDeleteI would think that your "large majority" of conservatives would be reflected in the polling. It isn't. I'd think it would be reflected in the size of our government and our national debt, among other things. It isn't. Is it likely that a nation with a large majority of conservatives would so frequently give so much authority to people like Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama? If "Palin is a rebuke to all the men in America", as you claim, then she must be rebuking every American man affiliated with her political campaigns, every American man who voted for her, your church's pastors, etc. You should explain how you supposedly know that all of those men are being rebuked by Palin. How did you come to know that every pastor, every male serving in the military, fireman, policeman, missionary, evangelist, etc. is a "coward"? I'm also wondering how you supposedly know that "Palin fears only God". Do you think her relationship with Roman Catholics and Mormons, for example, reflects "fearing only God"? Do you think she'd get to such a high position in the current political atmosphere, an atmosphere that you've criticized yourself, if she was as radically different from other people as you're suggesting? If one of Palin's opponents had been a running mate to John McCain, what would you have made of that? And I wonder where Palin's "political skills" and ability to "move the masses" were during the 2008 campaign. Or in today's polling numbers. But your response to her negative polling numbers is "who cares". If you want to take a "who cares" approach toward electability, then why not start a write-in campaign for one of your cousins who's even more conservative than Palin? It doesn't matter if you'll be the only person voting for him. Then again, maybe there isn't anybody more conservative than Palin. She'll "fight the devil every day". She's not a "squish" like other Republicans. When liberals "pester" her, she quits before serving out a full term, like "a man".
If you want to keep participating in these threads, improve the quality of your posts. You're wasting everybody's time.
>I would think that your "large majority" of conservatives would be reflected in the polling. It isn't. I'd think it would be reflected in the size of our government and our national debt, among other things. It isn't. Is it likely that a nation with a large majority of conservatives would so frequently give so much authority to people like Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama?
ReplyDeleteWe're a center-right country, overwhelmingly. The hard left that controls the Democrat Party is at most still less than 20%. They have all the shamelessness of the children of the devil, the advantage of not having to hold themselves to any standard, the untiring desire to defile that the devil has, the lack of interest in anything else but political power and propaganda and infiltrating institutions, taking them over, etc., etc. Americans tend to have lives and the work of the world to tend to. This is an old political story.
>If "Palin is a rebuke to all the men in America", as you claim, then she must be rebuking every American man affiliated with her political campaigns, every American man who voted for her, your church's pastors, etc. You should explain how you supposedly know that all of those men are being rebuked by Palin. How did you come to know that every pastor, every male serving in the military, fireman, policeman, missionary, evangelist, etc. is a "coward"?
You're being silly, Jason. If I held your statements to such literal standards you'd say I was being silly. You know the point I was making, and it's a legitimate point.
>I'm also wondering how you supposedly know that "Palin fears only God". Do you think her relationship with Roman Catholics and Mormons, for example, reflects "fearing only God"? Do you think she'd get to such a high position in the current political atmosphere, an atmosphere that you've criticized yourself, if she was as radically different from other people as you're suggesting? If one of Palin's opponents had been a running mate to John McCain, what would you have made of that?
I'd say you're applying a scale of perfection, but you're not even doing that. This is shallow. If you don't know what it means when I say Palin fear only God and no man just leave it at that.
>And I wonder where Palin's "political skills" and ability to "move the masses" were during the 2008 campaign.
She wasn't running for President. The dead carp at the top of that ticket had something to do with losing that election.
>Or in today's polling numbers. But your response to her negative polling numbers is "who cares".
That's because they are ephemeral. And by 'who cares' I'm saying: "Who cares." If people want Obama for another four devastating years I can't stop them.
>If you want to take a "who cares" approach toward electability, then why not start a write-in campaign for one of your cousins who's even more conservative than Palin? It doesn't matter if you'll be the only person voting for him. Then again, maybe there isn't anybody more conservative than Palin. She'll "fight the devil every day". She's not a "squish" like other Republicans. When liberals "pester" her, she quits before serving out a full term, like "a man".
She outgrew that office. Handing it to her Lt. Gov. is hardly some kind of character flaw or crime. Just apparently easy material for cheap shots. Again, you take the Olbermann line, fine. Work that.
>If you want to keep participating in these threads, improve the quality of your posts. You're wasting everybody's time.
Wow.
c.t.,
ReplyDeleteYou claim that we aren't supposed to take you as literally as I did, but you aren't explaining how we should interpret you. I don't see anything in your comments or their context that would tell us what you supposedly meant to say. And you aren't providing much of an argument for your position. You make a lot of assertions, but without much supporting evidence. And evidence that contradicts what you seem to be saying, like polling and voting data, is dismissed with a similar lack of supporting argumentation. Why should people want to interact with somebody who seems so uninterested in communicating clearly and so uninterested in supporting his claims?
It's a Tea Party thing. We kind of don't care about the usual considerations. Look what the usual considerations have gotten us. I'll take any Republican over the satanic left. But at this point the patience has run out. The devil's children work any Republican that gets into office, usually through all the concerns being expressed here. "You can't possibly... Well what will they think if... If we do that imagine how it will play to the..." My goodness, who cares at this point. They have defecated on just about every institution and important element of what makes this country work. The phrase the worst political class in the history of this nation includes Republicans. So a Palin shows up and you're all, "The media says we should be embarrassed by such a person, therefore..."
ReplyDeleteThere is basically nothing the left can't do. I just rejoice (and mark my words, they are spoken deliberately) I just rejoice - rejoice - that hell exists and that every last leftist that has spent their time loving what is evil and hating what is good and acting on such wickedness will spend eternity in indescribable pain. I rejoice in that. It makes me feel joy. And the fact that I won't even have to remember their filthy, wicked souls makes it even better.
c.t.
ReplyDeleteThe "usual considerations" I just asked you about were things like clarity and evidence. If you aren't concerned about such things, then you don't have much to say or much that's worth listening to.
Your latest claims about my views and the views of other Palin critics are about as ridiculous as your earlier comments. And your distorted view of Hell and those who go there corresponds well to your distorted view of politics. Find somewhere else to post.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteOf course, c.t. does illustrate the problems that we'll have if Palin enters the race. She has a strong 10% of the country behind her, who would rather crash and burn than to support anyone other than Palin. If she gets into the race, she does not have enough support to win it, but she has more than enough support to ensure Obama gets re-elected on the divided vote.
c.t.,
ReplyDeleteI’ve deleted your latest post. You aren’t permitted to post at Triablogue any longer. You were banned in the past, and you recently started posting again. I told you, in my last reply, to find somewhere else to post. You're banned.