August 31, 2009

Daily Roundup

The AP reports that former Gov. Palin will venture to Hong Kong to deliver a speech to the CLSA Investors Forum, “a well-known annual conference of global investment managers”:

Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Alan Greenspan have spoken at the event, hosted by brokerage and investment group CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.

“Our keynote speakers are notable luminaries who often address topics that go beyond traditional finance such as geopolitics,” company spokeswoman Simone Wheeler said in a statement.

Hopefully, this address will help burnish Palin’s international credentials, an area commonly perceived as a weakness of hers.

Albert R. Hunt has provided a nice commentary of Gov. Pawlenty on Bloomberg.  The entire article merits a read, but here are some highlights:

The Democrats ended their presidential hiatus in 1992 and 2008 with a similar formula: Nominate a candidate not associated with Washington’s wars, who doesn’t belong to the party’s ideological base though is acceptable to it, and who can attract independent voters.

It is a formula Republicans would do well to replicate next time. If so, there is an aspirant who may fit the bill: Tim Pawlenty. Tim Pawlenty? For the uninformed, he is the two- term Republican governor of Minnesota.

He doesn’t excite Republican passions like Sarah Palin, or bring the intellectual range of Newt Gingrich, the down-home humor of Mike Huckabee or the resources of Mitt Romney. He also brings none of their baggage, has a consistently conservative record, presents his views in a less-confrontational and more measured way, and has succeeded in a Democratic state.

…He brings an almost Jack Kemp-like fervor to cutting marginal tax rates; an important predicate for any presidential run may be how Pawlenty handles a recommendation from a task force he appointed that the state replace some corporate and individual taxes with consumption levies.

His emphasis on taxes rankles many Minnesota Democrats. “There is a long line of progressive Republican governors in Minnesota who are big supporters of education,” says Walter Mondale, the former vice president and U.S. senator. “He is much more interested in tax-cutting and has broken with that tradition.”

…As the Pawlenty camp looks at the political landscape for 2012, they see Huckabee and possibly Palin vying for the vote of the movement right in the Republican Party. If Pawlenty catches on, he would then compete with Romney for more mainstream party members.

The Governor has to like seeing that “He brings an almost Jack Kemp-like fervor to cutting marginal tax rates…” line.

Finally, Nate Silver has completed another insightful analysis regarding the effect of President Obama’s Gallup approval ratings on Congressional mid-terms and his re-election chances.  Among his conclusions:

  • The relationship between Presidential approval and his party’s fate at the midterm elections is quite linear. An approval rating of 50 percent [where Obama stood with Gallup yesterday] would typically be associated with a loss of about 26 seats“.
  • The Democrats, however, currently have a 78-seat advantage in the House, meaning that it would take a 39-seat loss for them to lose control of the chamber. The over-under for how unpopular Obama would have to be in order to be more likely than not to cost his party those seats is not 50 percent — it’s probably more like 42 percent.
  • Against Sarah Palin, frankly, Obama could conceivably win re-election with an approval rating well into the 40′s and possibly even into the 30′s. He’ll have less margin of error, potentially, if the GOP nominates someone like Mitt Romney (although if I were a Republican strategist, I’d still be holding out hope for none-of-the-above).
  • A quick-and-dirty probit analysis, based on the dataset you see above and placing slightly more weight on recent elections, puts the breakeven number at 44 percent, and suggests that a President at 50 percent approval is as much as a 90 percent bet to win a second term“.

Silver also included this informative graph:

Presidential Approval

by @ 1:45 pm. Filed under 2010, Barack Obama, Poll Watch, R4'12 Essential Reads, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42012.com/2009/08/31/daily-roundup-44/trackback/

102 Responses to “Daily Roundup”

  1. mike Says:

    Our Government is run by off shore private global banks. “The Obama Deception” can be googled and watched online free for an introduction to who really runs the Federal government. The right left paradigm is dying. This false paradigm is created by a main stream media that is owned by the same corporations that buy the elections for the idiots that are elected each year. The same men behind the curtain who ran the Bush administration run Obama. Wake up things are not what we’ve been brain washed by the TV into thinking.

  2. MWS Says:

    Wait a minute. A President with a 50% approval rating has about a 90% of re-election? I think Bush was right about 50% in ’04, and he was about 60k vote switch in Ohio from losing.

    Also, a President with a ZERO % approval has a 30% chance? On what planet? Rod Blagovich had about 5-10% approval here when they threw him in the slammer. I don’t think he had a 30% chance of getting elected to carve the family turkey at Thanksgiving.

    That’s an idiotic chart.

  3. Right Says:

    2, Bush still won right? Silver wasn’t saying that he’ll win 90% of the vote if approval is at 50%.

  4. Kevin Says:

    #2, no, a president with 30% approval has a 0% chance according to the chart.

    Anyway, I think against Palin, Obama could win with a 35% approval rating.

  5. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    MWS,

    You have the chart backwards. Someone with a 30% approval rating apparently has a 0% chance of getting re-elected. Also, that 60k votes in Ohio thing was always silliness. 60k votes was about a 2% swing. Other states would have tipped before Ohio had there been a 2% swing.

  6. Aron Goldman Says:

    Why Won’t Giuliani Aim for Albany? Washington Still Sounds Nicer
    http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Why+Won%27t+Giuliani+Aim+for+Albany%3F+Washington+Still+Sounds+Nicer&expire=&urlID=409693037&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fdaily%2Fintel%2F2009%2F08%2Fwhy_wont_giuliani_aim_for_alba.html&partnerID=73272

    While the chance to crack the whip on a backward state government intrigues him, Giuliani allies say he hasn’t lost sight of his larger ambition in Washington.

    The question, then, is whether Albany is the right staging ground for a resurrection. That’s doubtful. What worries Giuliani isn’t so much the risk of going toe-to-toe against Cuomo (an irresistible lure for the political media), but the consequences of winning. Giuliani can run for governor or run for president in 2012, but he probably can’t do both.

    If he wants to win votes in a blue state, Giuliani will have to accept an inevitable slide away from the right-wing tack he took during his previous presidential campaign. But the biggest downside is the job itself. For one, there’s the time factor. Unlike being a U.S. senator, the job of a first-term governor is too demanding to accommodate the disruptions of a national campaign. But more than that, Albany isn’t the most propitious setting for a political rebirth.

    As any recent governor will tell you, it’s the place where political careers go to die. For Giuliani, the prospect of banging heads against Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver and other legislative leaders is enough to give him pause. “He was concerned about what kind of relationship he would develop with the leaders of the Senate and Assembly,” says Guy Molinari, the former congressman and Staten Island borough president, who met with Giuliani two weeks ago. “It would require him to believe that the state needed him and there was no one else who could serve those needs.” (Molinari, personally, thinks Giuliani could get along with Silver. “I would set up a meeting between the two guys. They could be fast friends, just like Reagan was with Tip O’Neill.”)

    And while Giuliani surveys the bleak landscape in Albany, he has his eye on the shifting ground in Washington. President Obama appears to be vulnerable, and the Republican field in 2012 is open. “Do you go to Albany in a thankless job, or do you take another shot nationally?” asks a close observer of Giuliani. “He’s aware that the Obama administration is falling apart much more quickly than anybody imagined.”

    That may mean another run at the White House. Or Giuliani may be envisioning a role of vice-president or as a senior figure in a Republican administration. Republicans suspect Giuliani’s calculations are not so different than Mayor Bloomberg’s. “What’s going on here is going on in New York City. It’s about two mayors who want to stay current because they want to run for president. They see the writing on the wall about Obama, and it doesn’t look good,” says a longtime Republican operative.

  7. Dave Says:

    Sarah is poised to cash in big-time on the speechifying circuit. This is how Ronald Reagan honed his skills on his way to becoming the great communicator. She’s already accomplished at speaking, but this will help her find her voice as it will force her to think coherently about her message. It will also help her expand her base. The Asia speech by itself will force her to expand her intellectual repertoire. It will be interesting to follow her progress. BTW, I’m still a Rombot to the core, just not an anti-Palin Rombot.

  8. Aron Goldman Says:

    Palin Goes To Hong Kong…What Will She Say?
    http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/palin_goes_to_hong_kongwhat_will_she_say.php

    Here are six things to watch for:

    1. Energy policy. Energy was Palin’s pet issue during the 2008 campaign; she has direct experience with it in Alaska, and it was a hot topic last summer. If Palin wants to talk about geopolitics, it would make sense for her to approach it from an energy standpoint. Everything she says about drilling for more oil seems to rile environmentalists, but it’ll likely rile them even more if she calls for more drilling while in China, a major polluter.

    2. How much foreign policy will she put into the speech? This is a big opportunity for her to prove that she is, in fact, fluent in foreign policy matters, something lots of people doubted in ’08. How much has she studied it since then, given that it was a gap in her profile, and an important one given that she may seek the presidency?

    3. Foreign policy vs. national security. National security is the main issue for some Republicans. America’s world standing and relationships with other countries, to them, is almost the same thing as its national security. Palin could satisfy a chunk of her base by talking more about terrorism than anything else.

    4. How will she deal with China? Being in China, one almost has to say something about it. Hillary Clinton has taken some heat for not speaking out against Chinese human rights abuses; will Palin touch it? In a Democratic debate last year, candidates agreed that China is neither friend nor foe, but a strategic competitor. Will Palin lay out a vision of how the U.S. and China should interact?

    5. How much will this speech be about 2012? If she uses phrases like “I would do X,” it’s on.

    6. Criticizing America on foreign soil. As Glenn Greenwald noted, Republicans have lit into Democrats who criticize U.S. policy while on foreign soil. Mike Huckabee did so while in Israel this month, with impunity. As someone who disagrees with President Obama about most things, Palin is, by nature, critical of what the U.S. is doing right now…Huckabee wasn’t criticized, but Greenwald’s complaint may have sown the seeds for a later narrative about foreign-soil criticism if Palin blasts Obama. Plus, the drama always seems to find her. Liberals would probably make a bigger deal out of it if Palin criticized America than if Huckabee did.

    And, a special bonus point of interest:

    7. How much will she chat up Jon Huntsman, the former GOP governor of Utah who’s now serving as Obama’s ambassador in Beijing? He was touted as a possible 2012 candidate; if they meet, will they strike up an alliance?

  9. OHIO JOE Says:

    Well Dave, I’m glad that there are still Romneyites that are not anti-Palin.

  10. Dave Says:

    Aron’s post in #6 suggests that Rudy still harbors presidential ambitions. Does he realize that in order to become president he would actually have to win a primary??

  11. Richard Murray Says:

    #10 That isn’t nice! Myr Giuliani did win a delegate last time. All he has to do is figure out how to win 1,190 more and the nomination is his!

  12. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    No Muslims at Black Eyed Peas concert
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090827/od_nm/us_concert

  13. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Japanese men battle epic loneliness by fostering intense relationships, and romance, with stuffed pillows representing teenage girl
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090830/od_notw/nwx090830xml

  14. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Huntsman makes $415-million bid for Tronox assets
    http://ad.vu/ycxw

  15. Aron Goldman Says:

    Mass. Governor Sets Date for Senate Special Election
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/08/mass_governor_sets_date_for_se.html

    Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has set Jan. 19 as the date for a special election to fill the final three years of Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate term. Patrick also pleaded Monday for the state legislature to allow him to appoint a replacement for Kennedy who would serve until that election.

    In the meantime, a state legislative committee has scheduled a hearing for Sept. 9 to consider the proposal — floated by Sen. Kennedy himself, just days before he died from brain cancer — to allow Patrick to appoint an interim replacement pending the special election.

  16. Aron Goldman Says:

    Think Again: Realism
    Amid war and recession, Americans are in a no-nonsense, matter-of-fact mood. But that, says a leading architect of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, is no reason to adopt a misguided doctrine.
    by Paul Wolfowitz
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/17/think_again_realism?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

  17. Heath Says:

    14 – that is news how?

  18. Illinoisguy Says:

    I hope she doesn’t plagiarize Reagan and ask them to tear down their wall. ;)

  19. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    #18, the Wall isn’t in Hong Kong… ;)

    #17, IT IS A DAILY ROUNDUP…..Tony has been doing this for months…

  20. Aron Goldman Says:

    Fox News Sunday Panel Plus
    Watch Panel Plus for August 30, 2009 with Bill Sammon, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams
    http://fns.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/30/panel-plus-august-30-2009/

    This Week Roundtable: ObamaCare and CIA Investigation
    http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8447167

    This Week Green Room: Did Torture Work?
    http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8447597

    Liz Cheney and Sam Donaldson Spar on CIA Probe
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/liz-cheney-and-sam-donaldson-spar-on-cia-probe.html

  21. Illinoisguy Says:

    #19
    #18, the Wall isn’t in Hong Kong…

    Yes, true Kris, but does she know that??? :)

    Africa isn’t a country either you know! Of course, we don’t know if she really said that….we just know that some of McCain’ people said she did. They could be lieing of course.

  22. JA Pruce Says:

    This is very smart of Palin – it is building up her strong foreign policy experience and this could be a significant trip with significant accomplishment and important photo opportunities.

  23. Aron Goldman Says:

    Re: #21,

    Fox News Video: Shepard Smith with Carl Cameron
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPsV6ZhL15c

    Fox News Video: Bill O’Reilly with Carl Cameron
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3dkiWncf2k

  24. Heath Says:

    Interesting graph by Silver.

    Personally I think that 45% is the magic number. We need to get to down to (a real) 45% or below. Only another 8-10% or so to go!

    Of course that’s versing Romney. If he wins the lottery and faces ex gov Palin he could win with a 30% approval rating (eg Corzine is still in his race with a 30% odd approval rating).

  25. Heath Says:

    17 – does it even relate to Ambassador Huntsman?

    In any event he’s clearly not running.

  26. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Aron/Illinoisguy,

    That was proven false and you know it.

    #25, that is his primary source of income.

  27. Illinoisguy Says:

    Aron, the videos in your #23 comment SHOULD BE a really huge problem for any of us with open minds. Tht’s what is so overwhelmingly baffling to me, is why otherwise intelligent people on here still cling to her skirt. I’m just astonished by it. Can you imagine what the democrats would do with this material?

  28. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    #27, Do Mormon women wear skirts? Do they lie as often as you do?

  29. Illinoisguy Says:

    #26 – No, I dont’ know it Kristofer…show me where it was PROVEN false. Are you saying Karl Cameron was lieing, or that the sources were lieing? Or what?

  30. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/msnbc_taken_in_by_hoxer_on_pal.html

  31. Illinoisguy Says:

    What in the heck was that religious slam supposed to mean Kristofer? I don’t ever lie. I may occasionally make a mistake, but I never lie. Last night I said I didn’t think Mitt had been below three percent after they started putting out polls for the 2008 election, but found in 2005 and 2006 he was, which was before he was a candidate of course. He was still governor, and had made no movement toward being a candidate. I was wrong, but I don’t lie., and I strongly resent the implication.

  32. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    MSNBC Retracts Story claiming Sarah Palin thought Africa was a Country

    “the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.”
    http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/none/msnbc-retracts-story-claiming-sarah-palin-thought-africa-was-a-country-308599/

  33. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    NY Times: Media Falls for Hoax (Maybe Sarah Palin knows her geography after all)

    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/13/ny-times-media-falls-for-hoax-maybe-sarah-palin-knows-her-geography-after-all/

  34. Aron Goldman Says:

    That was proven false

    The hell it was!

    The pranksters behind Eisenstadt acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak. He just claimed falsely that he was the leaker–and they say they have no reason to cast doubt on the original story. For its part, Fox News Channel continues to stand behind its story.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin/&pagewanted=print

    Longtime Palin staffer Meg Stapleton told ABC News’ Kate Snow that Palin had fumbled over an Africa comment, but that it was a misspeak not worthy of the press coverage it received.

    She explained that during a briefing session, someone asked Palin to explain the McCain-Palin stance on an issue, and as she was responding, “in the middle, she said ‘country of Africa’ and somebody instantly wrote it down and said, ‘Oh, my God, she thinks it’s a country.’”

    But “she knows it’s a continent,” Stapleton said. “It was just a human mistake, just like Obama saying 57 states. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that Obama knows there are 50 states.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=6250151&page=1

  35. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    No F^%& way, Goldie!!!!

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/11/09/the-truth-about-palin-africa-and-nafta/

    This in no way diminishes the many valid criticisms made of Sarah Palin’s preparedness for the Vice Presidency, nor of her authenticity as a voice for the average American, but The National Review’s Rich Lowry has the scoop on some unfair piling-on that has occurred recently.

    Lowry, you may remember, is the guy who surmised that Palin’s wink during the VP debate caused many an American male to sit more erect on their couches. Lowry’s apparent, um, admiration for Palin aside, his source’s explanation of the recent leak about Palin’s knowledge of Africa and NAFTA jibe with what I thought all along:
    (Steve Biegun, the former Bush NSC aid who briefed Sarah Palin on foreign policy)says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.”

    (On NAFTA) He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what’s the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”-her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.
    I’ve written a lot about Palin, as there are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made, but I’ve found myself defending her a lot recently (Unlike, as the LA Times notes, McCain, or any other GOP leader save one). That’s because legitimate criticism is weakened by dishonest or unfair attacks, and because it just isn’t right. Doing it to save your own skin, while proving only your own dishonesty, is the height of stupidity and cowardice

  36. Illinoisguy Says:

    Nice try Kristofer, but it looks as if you didn’t even view Aron’s links. They were both Karl Cameron, one to O’Reilly, and one to Shepherd Smith. Unless Karl retracted what he said and his sources denied it, you telling me something about MSNBC retracting says nothing at all. It’s very troubling. If even 1/2 of what Karl reported is true, it’s a very big problem for Sarah Palin.

  37. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    whatever #36….it was debunked by her FP advisors.

  38. Illinoisguy Says:

    Hahaha, yeah right Kris, “HER FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS” can really debunk the story from Cameron! It’s this kind of stupid thinking that got out butt beat last time…..and if we’re not careful it will happen again.

  39. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    whatever #36….Aron posted all old links.

  40. Martha Says:

    Kris, you prove what a jerk you are over and over and over. Sad, really for a guy who has some potential.

  41. lkv Says:

    #31;

    IllinoisG. Your right about Palin. It’s scary that people will follow her even though she lacks fundamental knowledge in many of the issues we face.

    It’s too bad she is using the U.S. Political system as a boost to launch a speaking tour for $$$,$$$, instead of trying to be the best leader she can be as a Public Servant.

    She did a great job of marketing herself, as she used her power as a woman instead of her power as a leader, I’m afraid the glass ceiling will have to wait, because while she did such a good job marketing herself with the demands for big speaking fees, she stereotyped young women who aspires for higher office.

  42. Illinoisguy Says:

    So?????? What the heck does that do for your argument? Did Cameron agree he lied? Did the McCain campaign admit they lied to Cameron? The video tells us a lot about Sarah Palin. It’s troubling and will provide lots of fodder for the Democrats if she were to be a part of the next ticket. I don’t think she will be, but if she were to be, it would be a problem for us.

  43. Martha Says:

    The bottom line is that we are led to wonder about Palin’s knowledge of everything because of her own performance during and since the campaign! It is entirely Palin’s fault for not being able to show she has a brain. We are told over and over that she is indeed a capable and smart leader, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

  44. Martha Says:

    I’m fine with Palin making all the money she wants. Nothing wrong with that. But don’t tell me she’s the great next hope for the GOP when she quit her job as gov for “greener” pastures. If she can’t stick out the last 18 months of the governorship of the smallest state, she can’t be trusted with our nomination.

    What I want to know is: Who is going to write her “economic” speech? She certainly has advisors. Who are they? We all know Palin has precious little creds on economics. Giving a speech isn’t going to -)suddenly give change that. She’s the gal who thought the bailout was about healthcare reform. :-)

  45. lkv Says:

    KristoferL,;

    37: The question is why would McCains campaign staff destroy their credibility and reputations so they could destroy Palin. These people want to move on to other campaigns. and a Campaign is their resume.

    I believe the Vanity Fair article.

  46. Martha Says:

    After the election, everyone said wait and see what Palin does. If she goes home and proves herself a good gov, then she can be taken seriously.

    She did not. She went home and created a lot of controversy, personal and public. She bungled a lot of legislative matters. She was ineffective. She was taking heat from everyone – Republicans and Democrats. Former supporters turned against her.

    She truly was all hat and no cattle. Her high poll numbers were a fantasy based almost entirely on persona and high gas tax revenues. The real Palin finally showed up, did a poor job, and ended up throwing in the towel. I’m not saying the media wasn’t rough on her, they were. But she folded like a cheap suit.

  47. knickers in a twist Says:

    Dave, are we listening to the same woman speak? She has a shrill voice, repeats herself, and uses foul language to be ‘just like us’ in her “speeches”. She also does not know the subject very well. I don’t think she’ll run in 12. I think she’s actually washed up.

  48. lkv Says:

    It will be interesting, especially since Palin will need someone to interpret her speech. I hope she’s done her homework.

  49. Aron Goldman Says:

    Kris,

    So, you’re accusing Fox News, who continued to stand by its story several days after Rich Lowry’s column, of making things up?

    Neither Meg Stapleton nor Steve Biegun addressed the following specific claims made by McCain insiders:

    Palin didn’t know South Africa was an independent country, believing it was part of a larger African nation; like Australia, both a country and a continent.

    Unrelated to the NAFTA claim, she was unable to name all the countries in North America.

    Palin didn’t understand the idea of American exceptionalism, or Wilsonianism.

    Palin refused preparation for the now-infamous Couric interview.

    Palin complained after the Couric debacle that she wanted to be steered toward “more friendly audiences”, presumably disinterested in having to answer reporters’ tough questions, or proving herself to be knowledgable, capable and credible to a skeptical press.

    Palin would look at her press clippings in the morning and throw tantrums; throwing paperwork, and being so nasty that she drove McCain staffers to tears.

    Even Biegun, who was, next to Randy Scheunemann, arguably Palin’s biggest fan within the McCain campaign, admitted to Lowry that “Palin had a steep learning curve on foreign issues” and conceded to Politico’s Jonathan Martin ” “that Palin couldn’t compare to Joe Biden’s 35 years of experience” and that “they shouldn’t have tried to even bother.”

  50. Alex Knepper Says:

    I think it’s quite obvious to anyone who isn’t blinded by some sort of Palin Derangement Syndrome that Palin knows that Africa is a continent.

  51. Alex Knepper Says:

    Palin didn’t know South Africa was an independent country, believing it was part of a larger African nation; like Australia, both a country and a continent.

    If true, she obviously thought that “southern Africa” was being referred to, much as “North Africa” could be used to speak of the maghreb.

    Unrelated to the NAFTA claim, she was unable to name all the countries in North America.

    Oh, please.

    Palin didn’t understand the idea of American exceptionalism, or Wilsonianism.

    I highly doubt this.

  52. Aron Goldman Says:

    Palin knows that Africa is a continent.

    Alex,

    As I pointed out in #49, I don’t dispute that.

    Why do you think it’s obvious, though, that Palin knew South Africa was an independent nation, or highly doubt she didn’t understand Wilsonianism, when she couldn’t even articulate the Bush Doctrine?

    Do you believe McCain staffers were lying when they told that to Carl Cameron, or suffering from PDS?

  53. Alex Knepper Says:

    Do you believe McCain staffers were lying when they told that to Carl Cameron, or suffering from PDS?

    They probably thought “Heh, let’s screw her over by feeding the media lines about how air-headed Sarah is!”

    I’m sure that there were plenty of McCain staffers who did think that she was an airhead and a cause of the loss, and we have no reason to assume that they’re all Mr. Nice Guy.

  54. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    “Sad, really for a guy who has some potential.”

    Martha, I am old and way beyond ‘potential’, although I have yet to his the crazy houswife stage, yet.

  55. OHIO JOE Says:

    I will never understand why these Romneyites, Pawlentyites and or who ever these characters are actually naive enough to believe that Mrs. Palin does not know anything about geography. Meanwhile, many of these same characters have no clue about how Alaska opperates, they think that any monkey can run Alaska and yet they have no clue. Further, these same ‘know it all Conservatives’ believe that our community organizer is just brilliant despite the fact they they claim to disagree with him. IIII, I really wonder sometimes what planet some people come from. Despite that fact that Tommy Boy and Kristofer among other prove them wrong or at least tell the other side of the story, it never stops a few Anti-Palinites from throwing more @#$% against the wall and see what sticks. I am glad you guys are having fun because this non-sence is getting old fast.

  56. knickers in a twist Says:

    52, because of what I saw on the campaing trail from Madame Palin, I believe the McCain staffers. It was a poor pick to apease the far right, and nothing more. It was a gamble that FAILED.

  57. knickers in a twist Says:

    Ohio, If she was not such a easy target, and giving up a LOT of stuff for fodder, I don’t think there would be any brown stuff being tossed against the walls. BUT, she hands it to them on a silver platter.

  58. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Aron, Palin gave Gibson his own definition of what the Bush Doctrine was from 2002, the Bush Doctrine doesn’t exist anyway it is a phrase coined by Krauhammer. How can you claim she didn’t know what it was, when she gave Gibson his own definition?

  59. jerseyrepublican Says:

    On the days following the election, there was talk about how the McCain campaign was one of the worst run campaigns in recent political history. These people were out of a job and in survival mode. They needed a fall guy and obviously, the MSM wanted bad stories about Palin. The idea that any of you can remotely believe most of this is really a testament to your own intellectual flaws.

    Some of you are probably just angry that Palin was asked to deliver such a speech at such an important event and Romney was not. And, I am sure some of you are just afraid that this will bump up Palin’s credentials.

  60. Illinoisguy Says:

    Well, I don’t know who you are talking about OJ, but I, for one, think that Obama is the worst president we have ever had ideologically, and don’t think he is the sharpest axe in the shed either. My problem with Sarah Palin is that she has never done her homework in order to be a player on the world stage. She really doesn’t know very much about many, many subjects that are imperative that she know. It appears that she is intellectually lazy, and that she would rather spend her time doing other things. She seems to have been the one throwing things against the wall….showing no control when things didn’t go her way. Refusing to be prepped for the Couric interview (especially when she knew so little) was inexcusable. She’s years away from ready to be a player at the national level. The more time goes by, the most obvious that becomes.

  61. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Illinois, you mean the way she handled the health care debate, from FACEBOOK, and forced the opposition, the President included, to rethink their entire stance on the issue? Do you listen to yourself?

  62. OHIO JOE Says:

    Well Knickers, you and perhaps Martha among others were watching a different campaign. I have learned to believe that Palin camp over her opponents because her opponents repeat nothing, but bunk. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for spreading such trash. Why some are so willing to believe every liberal bogus talking point and disgrace the party over PDS is beyond me. I hope your candidate (candidates) do not have to put up with half the bunk that Mrs. Palin had to listen to.

  63. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Why is it the Rombots believe any negative press about Palin but if there is a bad story about Romney they are up in arms calling very similar journalist and their sources liars? Why is that? I guess there is a double standard!

  64. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Ohio, with friends like these…who needs enemies?!?!

  65. OHIO JOE Says:

    “Do you listen to yourself?” Well Jersey, I think the bunch of them do not listen to themselves sometimes. They just want to impress each with who can come up with the most extreme anti-Palin statement. One wonders what happened to the cornflakes of the Anti-Palinites. Maybe they had too much coffee over the last few days.

  66. OHIO JOE Says:

    Yes Jersey, I for one do not intend to vote 3rd party. I shall back Mr. Romney for President should he win the nomination, but it will be fun having to watching the Romneyites having to defend their candidate from both the left and right. One day they might get a slight taste of their medicine. I wish them good Freaking luck.

  67. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Ohio, I really think they see how much good this speech can do for Palin and they cannot understand why Romney was not picked instead of Palin. I, for one, know the answer. Nobody really cares about what Romney has to say. He doesn’t make the news. When he leads in a poll it doesn’t even make the morning news shows news cycle. They cannot believe how badly they lose with favorables against Palin and they are still bitter about 2008. They also feel that Romney is the heir apparent to the 2012 nomination, even though he had to use millions of his own money to last until Feb/March in 2008. Unfortunately, for them, he is not the heir apparent, he has a long way to go and he has to beat many people to win the nomination.

  68. OHIO JOE Says:

    Yes, some of them think the country owes it to them and we must bow before them and they are bitter and jealous that some lady from Alaska is getting more attention, getting more things done and drawing bigger crowds. It is a shame in deed.

  69. jerseyrepublican Says:

    I wouldn’t back 3rd Party either unless I truly believe in the candidate. As of now I do not believe in Romney. He may be able to sell me on himself but as of now I cannot back him. If the Libertarians put up an amazing candidate then I might be able to back that person over Romney but otherwise, if Romney is the nominee, I might just have to sit out.

  70. OHIO JOE Says:

    I for one would give Mr. Romney a chance in 2012, but if he listens to these know it all clowns and shows poor judgement then I’ll look for somebody else in 2016.

  71. GetReal Says:

    I don’t know how it got to be that every Palin-bashing comment is linked to Romney on here. Aron is pretty anti-Romney. Knickers says she supports Romney but she voted for freaking Obama and reads lefty blogs from Alaska so I don’t even know what to think about her or where she is coming from. I’ll give you that Martha is a Romney supporter who likes to spend more time bashing Palin than praising Romney, but I think she has already admitted to being more anti-Palin and Huckabee than she is pro-Romney. Illinoisguy only says negative things when he gets fired up, like when people, based on one speaking engagement in Hong Kong, conclude that “nobody cares what (Romney) has to say.” I don’t see much other Palin-bashing coming from Romney supporters around here.

  72. Alex Knepper Says:

    I am so sick of hearing about how Palin “couldn’t have known what the Bush Doctrine is or isn’t because there is no Bush Doctrine.”

    Norman Podhoretz: “Enter the Bush Doctrine”
    Professor Robert Kaufmann: “In Defense of the Bush Doctrine”

    99% of people think that the Bush Doctrine means preventive/preemptive war.

    Regardless of whether you think that there is One Bush Doctrine or not, it certainly is NOT “……………his worldview???”

  73. knickers in a twist Says:

    OK, now Palin going to Asia makes sense.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/sara-palin-just-another-clsa-practical-joke-2009-9

  74. knickers in a twist Says:

    Jersey. We hear it right from her mouth. Who needs the press to report stupid, with it just falls freely when her mouth opens up?

  75. Martha Says:

    73. Now that’s funny.

  76. Martha Says:

    72. Everyone was just trying to make an excuse for Palin.

  77. Martha Says:

    71. I love how you get me.

  78. OHIO JOE Says:

    “73. Now that’s funny.” It may be funny, but I would take it with a grain of salt. BTW Martha, the fact that you have more hatred for people like Mrs. Palin than you have love for your own candidate frankly reflect poorly on your character. I would have a little more respect for you if you spent more time building up your candidate than tearing other candidates down. Get Real has a point, not everybody like your is a Romneyite, but it is a disgrace how you trash Mr. Palin first and ask questions later. Unfortunately, you will not follow Kristofer’s good example, you would sooner trash Conservatives than you would liberals, and I for one want no part of it. As for some of us making excuses for Mrs. Palin, you bet you we are going to stand up for her against such trashings who are willing to throw any sort of bunk at her and hope its sticks no matter how true it is.

    BTW, Illinoisguy, yes you for one to be fair are not fooled by Mr. Obama. However, many of your fellow anti-Palinites were fooled enough by him to give him a chance. Real freaking swell.

  79. Martha Says:

    54. Kris,

    I don’t know how old you are, but you are not way beyond potential improvement. Your posts are almost always insightful and relevant, and I enjoy them – especially your FP/NS stuff. But when you comment, you are often dishonest and rude to others.

    That’s why I say it’s sad. You do have more potential. I may be very critical of Palin and Huckabee, but I am never rude to other posters, nor do I lie about them when I don’t like what they say.

  80. Martha Says:

    78. Kristofer’s good example. LOL.

  81. Martha Says:

    OJ. I don’t hate Palin, as I have repeatedly made clear. I think she’s a terrible candidate – there’s a huge difference. She’d make a horrible nominee, and we’d be sure to get 4 more years of Obama.

    I also don’t want the left to continue framing us as the party of Palin. They’re quite successfully at it right now.

    I don’t think telling the truth about Palin is trashing her. I also don’t feel an obligation to protect her from criticism simply because she’s a Republican. Now is the time to get real about all our potential candidates. Nothing should be off the table.

    You automatically assume that “all the bunk” thrown at Palin is false. I’ve never understood how you do that. Most of my criticisms come directly from things Palin has said and done herself.

    OJ, you are a very nice guy, but you are too sensitive about Palin. You need to counter the claims, rather than criticize the people saying it.

  82. OHIO JOE Says:

    “Most of my criticisms come directly from things Palin has said and done herself.” Or what others have said about her. She never said that Africa was a country anymore than Mr. Quayle said that Latin Americans spoke Latin. It was Mr. Obama who said that he has been to 57 states. Also I read in a foreign newspaper over the weekend that Mrs. Palin was never invited to that event anyways. However, that does not matter to the liberal media here in our own country.

    BTW, I do not care if I am a nice guy or not, I will continue to defend Mrs. Palin’s honor whether she ever runs for public office again or not. And I wish we were the party of Palin. However, I shall vote for the GOP against that Leftist we have now.

  83. Martha Says:

    82. OJ, I’ve never posted anything about the Africa charge. Yes, I have read things about Palin in Alaska newspapers and judged for myself the veracity of the stories. It’s not that hard to tell the truth from the smears. But, almost everything I post about Palin are my own observations from seeing her speak, or reading what she is up to.

  84. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Alex, that is not what I said. I said that Palin gave Gibson his own definition of what the ever evolving notion of what the Bush Doctrine was. Did she give him the most recent definition of the imaginary doctrine…NO, BUT she gave him the definition he was peddling around at the end of 2001 and 2002!!!

    I’m sure you’re familiar with this article by your hero Krauthammer.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

  85. jerseyrepublican Says:

    GetReal, All I have to say to you is…GETREAL. The only reason most Palin comments are linked to Romney, on here, is because it is always the same few Romney supporters who attack Palin every time something goes okay for her. That is your honest survey of the Rombots?

  86. OHIO JOE Says:

    Well Jersey, in fairness to Get Real, even though most of the anti-Palinites are Romneyites, there are other camps both here and on other sites that have their own anti-Palinite clowns. It is true that right now, the Romney-Palin contest is the most bitter, but we will see how the cookie crumbles over the next few years. There are a few Romneyites who try to get a handle on the extremists. As things heat up. It will be interesting to see how well the Pawlentyites keep their people on the reservation.

  87. Illinoisguy Says:

    OJ said “BTW, Illinoisguy, yes you for one to be fair are not fooled by Mr. Obama. However, many of your fellow anti-Palinites were fooled enough by him to give him a chance. Real freaking swell.”

    Not true! Very few (like two or three) threaten to not vote for the party. We have around 60 regular commenters on here for Romney. Now, go to C4P, and way over half of them profess that they would leave the party if Palin were to run 3rd party. That is what is dispicable, when a huge percentage would guarantee Obama another 4 years by voting 3rd party. Jersey is just one of a ton of people who have outwardly expressed that they will either not vote for Mitt, or vote third party should Sarah put her candidacy or weight in that direction. You need to clean your own house up instead of worrying about a very small percentage of Romney supporters who are in states that don’t matter, and they know they don’t.

  88. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Illinois, actually I never mentioned Sarah Palin as running 3rd Party…there is no chance she will ever run third party!!! I was speaking of some hypothetical person that probably does not exist. Why is it wrong for me wanting Romney to prove himself to me? What is wrong with that? Should I just give him my vote even though I despise him? Well, maybe not despise him but I dislike him with much fervor.

  89. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Illinois, actually I never mentioned Sarah Palin as running 3rd Party…there is no chance she will ever run third party!!! I was speaking of some hypothetical person that probably does not exist. Why is it wrong for me wanting Romney to prove himself to me? What is wrong with that? Should I just give him my vote even though I despise him? Well, maybe not despise him but I dislike him with much fervor.

  90. Illinoisguy Says:

    I didn’t mention you relative to third party. You just flat said you wouldn’t vote for Mitt PERIOD, unless he proves himself to you of course..whatever the heck that would take!!! He’s the most conservative well-qualified candidate we’ve had in a very long time, and if he hasn’t done it by now, I have no idea what it would take. All Palin had to do is wear her little short skirt, and talk about how great of a moose hunter she is and how much of a renegade she is, and you druel all over her. She absolutely has fallen on her face in numberous instances, and none of that matters to you guys. But Mitt ROmney can do everything right year after year, and you would withhold your vote, which means you are giving half a vote to Obama! Other than Mitt doing exactly what he has been doing for the last three years, what more would it take for you????

  91. GetReal Says:

    85 – Well, you can tell me to “Get Real” but I’m not the one who would vote for Obama over one of the most likely Republican nominees, you are.

  92. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Another reason why you should get real…I NEVER said I would vote for Obama…I NEVER WOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!!!! I might not vote if Romney is our nominee but I would never vote for Obama. That’s not entirely true, if NJ was sooo close that I thought my vote mattered then I would vote for Romney.

  93. jerseyrepublican Says:

    Illinois, I resent that comment but I, quite frankly, would expect nothing more from you. You seem like a good enough guy but you are a little too much invested in this race. I endorse and support Palin because I like her politics and I think she is the next Reagan. There has not been one Republican who can deliver a speech the way she was able to, at the announcement and the convention, since Reagan. If she’s prepared…she will be unbeatable…as long as she gets a relatively fair shake from the MSM!!! Never have I mentioned her looks in relation to my support of her…do I find her attractive? Sure, she’s attractive enough…but that’s not why I support her!!! Do you support Romney for his looks…because he did look nice on Hannity the other week, so maybe you can be blamed for the same thing. Does Martha or knickers support Romney because of his soft, manageable hair…I don’t know but I don’t throw that question around…so I’d appreciate it if you gave me the same respect!!!

  94. Illinoisguy Says:

    If Mitt is our nominee, NJ will be in play along with the vast majority of other states that Obama won.

    I resent a lot of comments that you ‘so called’ Palinites say about us. Sometimes I tend to fight fire with fire more than I should, but I’ll never see Palin the way you describe her…not even close. Try looking at the way she has fallen so far in the polls an realize that it is her that has put herself there, not the MSM. They go after her precisely because of the way in which she reacts. They would absolutlely love it if they can keep her name out in the front enough that she would be our nominee…just look at the favorabilities and match ups against Obama….she’s dead last, along with a 2nd tier Gingrich.

  95. jerseyrepublican Says:

    NJ will never be in play! I actually still think there is a good chance Christie will lose the election.

    2012, is years away and anything can happen between now and then.

  96. knickers in a twist Says:

    Ohio,
    We don’t hate palin. We use her for comic relief. Apparently so will the folks she’ll be speaking too.

  97. OHIO JOE Says:

    “If Mitt is our nominee, NJ will be in play along with the vast majority of other states that Obama won.
    ” It may be in play, but it is not a swing state even if Mr. Romney is the nominee. Other than that, I do not intend to get into a contest with you, IllinoisGuy per se, but I will say this. I for one am no ‘so-called’ Palinite, I am a Palinite and I am bloody proud of it. Even if I have to vote for your candidate because my candidate is no longer in the race, I will still be true to myself and my beliefs; I shall remain a Palinite ideologically. I am proud of what Mrs. Palin stands for and if you think that there is nothing more to Palinism than Moose stew, you have not been paying attention. I do not care how unpopular, Mrs. Palin may or may not be, I am a proud Palinite, I am not a so-called Palinite.

  98. jerseyrepublican Says:

    knickers and Martha…for lack of a better word…are liars. If what you do cannot be explained as hatred for Palin, then you have some serious issues. Hate is a natural human emotion and could explain the lengths you take to discredit this woman, that did nothing to you except take Romney’s VP slot, which he wasn’t in the running for anyway, and will probably take his nomination, that isn’t his to take. But you guys are obsessed with her and her demise…so it’s either hate or derangement…which is it?

  99. knickers in a twist Says:

    Ohio. Romney is too smart to pick someone as empty as Palin. No, we don’t hate her. I just don’t respect her. Big difference. Would I pay to see her? no. I have better use of my time.
    I am not obsessed with her demise. She’s doing that all on her own! I never hire a quitter. I only hire winners. She’s not a winner. I just want her to go home and raise that family she clamis she cares so damm much about. THEN we’ll talk. Some things are more important than the next big job.

  100. knickers in a twist Says:

    and hey, if money is improtant to her, go for it. so long as it’s not MY money paying for her pumps and unprofessionally short skirts and hair extensions.

  101. OHIO JOE Says:

    “Ohio. Romney is too smart to pick someone as empty as Palin” Good, I really hope you are right. Let some other sucker be the VP.

  102. Martha Says:

    98. Jersey, harsh words, but whatever. I don’t have to prove my motivations to you or anyone else.

    I don’t take politics personally like some here. I want the best nominee. If my aversion to Palin being our nominee is interpreted as hatred for her personally, I’m sorry for that, but it’s just not true. If I met Palin, I’m sure I would find her very likable.

    Hate is an emotion. I reserve my emotions for personal things.

State of the Race


Obama Approval


Support R4'12

Meta

Recent Posts

Buy This Book

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main