McCain’s endorsement shows that this race is attracting national attention and Brown might win if voting turn-out is low. We can wish. If more Republicans look at the race, it’s possible. Also…it wouldn’t hurt if some moderate Democrats put their support behind Brown.
Also, if Republicans want Brown to pull off an upset, they might want to keep Palin behind wraps. If she endorses Brown, that could be political poison to the Brown campaign in the most liberal state in the country.
I figured it was something like that — though the idea of Romney and McCain endorsing an opponent of Kirk is pretty unlikely. If that happened, I would agree that the party had lost it’s mind. I
I may not agree with Kirk on a lot of things, but he’s the only candidate who can win for us.
Back to Brown — it’s the longest of shots, but we can dream.
Well, Scott Brown is still going to lose. The last poll has him down twenty points, and he’s a Republican in Massachusetts.
If he won though – that would be an excellent win for the GOP.
1. Health care would be heavily compromised and the Dems would need to bend over backwards to get Snowe’s support
2. It would greatly improve the morale of the GOP and help candidate recruiting efforts
3. The media narrative would be toxic to the Democrats for several weeks
But while it’s a dream come true for Republicans, it’s exactly that. A dream. It’s not going to happen.
I remain very dubious of this strategy to nationalize a race where Barack Obama’s approval rating is still 55% and Obamacare still finds majority support in Rasmussen polling.
Didn’t Coulter find some local issue that would prove very damaging to Coakley? That would seem to be stronger than promoting the narrative that you would be the 41st Senator against a piece of legislation that the majority of Bay state likely voters support.
Romney served one term as governor of Massachusetts and was not popular at the time he left office. A Survey USA poll conducted in mid-November 2006 put the outgoing governor’s approval rating at just 34 percent, against 65 percent disapproval. This poll does not particularly seem to have been an outlier. A Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire poll in late October, 2006 also had Romney’s approval numbers in the red — 34 percent of likely voters had a favorable impression of him and 54 percent an unfavorable one — and polling conducted throughout 2005 (before Romney announced in December of that year that he would not seek a second term) showed him as many as 16 points behind his prospective Democratic rivals. Voters had evidently had enough of the guy.
McCain plus Mitt and the people over at http://www.mittromneycentral.com/2009/12/30/scott-brown-could-be-our-41st-vote-in-the-senate/ are all on board now. Let’s keep the pressure on the other movers and shakers to speak out for Scott Brown. We want McCain and Palin to send their facebook supporters over to Brown’s page and twitter/youtube accounts. Mitt did it and thousands have moved to support Scott Brown. Just imagine if Mccain and Palin did it as well!
Not sure if Brown can win, but if it’s close enough that it forces the national Dems to spend money and time in, of all places, Massachusetts, then it will be a good thing regardless of who wins.
The first line is conceivably true, the RNC only ponied up 50K, according to blogs for victory. However he has become the Tea Party candidate, and frankly if Romney didn’t committ to a race in his own state, well that would be a bit silly. The last time we were in a similar cycle to this, the GOP won every race, 1993-1994.
Palin will go in at least with a Facebook note. Not endorsing Brown would reflect poorly on her – so she should say something even if Brown doesn’t ask. Plus, this is a chance to extend an olive branch by endorsing a pro-choice candidate in a tough race.
Second – Palin could be effective in mobilizing voters to flood the polls and generate small donations. Remember that this is a base-mobilization election more than it is a play-to-the-center election. It’s far more important that hard-core Republicans be revved up than to aoid any potential blow among moderates.
Really no down side for getting Palin in at least on the margins – it would look like the GOP is being petulant if they keep her out – and Brown’s national effort is largely based on Palin-supporting tea party activists. If he personally asks Palin to stay out or even looks like he’s going that direction, his vollunteer effort disappearrs in a puff of smoke and his chances go down the toilet. Palin is going in.
17 – Looks like we’re both right. Doesn’t seem like there’s too much out there regarding his postion officially. And there are some quishy, non-definitive statements from him in the media – slthough he comes out against partial birth and strongly for parental notification.
The first link I provided is clearly a leftisist source – so more inclined to trust the Right to Lifers on the issue. That said, his official position could use some clarifying.
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
When McDonnell told Palin, “Thanks, by no thanks” he just got stronger in the polls. Why would Brown giving a cold shoulder to her hurt her in a much more liberal Massachusetts? Believe me, I want all the votes we can get for Brown, but McDonnell seemed to do best by asking Palin to stand aside and watch from a distance.
You’d think the NRSC would have released a poll if this has any chance of being close. I kind of do want to see at least one before the election. It looks like its one of the options of PPP (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/), but I guess more people care about Connecticut.
I would love to see a poll where people were asked “Knowing the current condition of the country and what has happened over the last year, if an election were held today between Barack Obama and John McCain, for whom would you vote?”
I bet McCain would do a lot better than he did in November 2008.
26. Anyone would poll better vs Obama right now. Remember that people were drunk with fervor in their support for him. Now they’re suffering through the hangover, communicating with the Almighty through the great white telephone.
Since Obama’s disapproval is now three points higher in the most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, my guess is that it’s probably 48-44, 48-43 Obama/McCain at this point.
The priority is to stake this health care leviathan, other considerations are to be seen in relative terms. We have to go back to Edward Brooke to remember the last Republican Senator
17. I disagree with you, Adam. Hard core Repubs are probably already with him. It’s the moderates that he will not want to offend.
My guess is that Brown will hope to avoid the Palin question and will do exactly what both McDonnell and Christie did when asked – be vague and try to change the subject.
What we need to have any shot at this, and it is a still a long shot, is to keep this race quiet. Coakley and the Democrats are complacent; they think they’ve already won the election. We need to mobilize our forces without rousing the Democrats to fight back. Having outside, national figures endorse Brown is okay, but having them campaign there might be too much. Romney is probably the only real national Republican who can get away with it since this is his home state. If Palin descends on MA, it will generate a lot of news coverage and might wake up the slumbering Democrats.
The issue here is that Browns funding and vollunteer base are among the national tea party types. Any overt move away from Palin and the money dries up along with the phone-bankers – so there won’t be enough resources to capitalize on any theoretical poll bounce.
Personally, I’m also expecting Palin herself to issue a formal endorsement via Facebook whether asked for it or not. If she says nothing about this race – especially as her supporters are among the strongest Bown-backers at the national level – then it reflects poorly on her. I don’t think she’d take kindly to any “please withold endorsement” entreaties from the NRSC. She will issue an endorsement, and that by nature will raise the profile of the race.
34 – correct. However, a Facebook move would generaate a lot of donations or phone-bankers. Nobody is suggesting Palin (or anyother national Repub with the possible exception of Romney) hit the trail for Brown. However, what he does need is money and volunteers to saturate the electorate.
Certainly a Facebook message to all 1,151,648 of her fans could generate some enthusiasm and maybe even money, and that is all good, but it still raises the profile of the race. Like I said, our best bet is to keep all this under wraps for as long as we can.
38 – That’s correct – but if we keep the profile low until all the way to election day then we defeat the purpose. The goal is to blow it up late enough that the opposition can’t properly mobilize in the remaining time. I would time a Palin endorsement for around 8 AM on January 11th. That’s the day of Brown’s planned moneybomb, and going in eight days out is early enough to have an effect (and ensure that the funds can actually be spent) but late enough to ensure that the Dems can’t get it together in time.
Note the that NRCC and the conservative media didn’t go all in for Anh Joseph Cao until election week – but they did go in for him.
We need to lay low for now – but I think January 11th is D-Day.
I hope you’re right. It would just be so nice for the GOP to win a huge upset victory anywhere. A win or even a real close call in MA could really mobilize Republicans around the country and help give us momentum for the Midterm elections.
Palin’s gotta give her folks the thumbs up on this, as the possibility of a Republican seat in Massachusetts should unite anyone that could ever call or have called themselves a Republican. Nothing big, just say that Scott’s a great guy who will work hard for the state and the country and be a force for reform, and that’s about all anyone could ask of her.
It’d be a respectful head-nod to him and reflect well on Palin.
We are discussing the Scott Brown campaign and pushing for donations (and volunteers) at the “Conservative Talk Forum” website. The address for the discussion thread is:
I think a 9-point loss is a little optimistic considering that’s pretty much what Patrick Ruffini in post #11 claimed Coakley’s lead to be right now under the best-case scenario.
The first is the “citizens’ poll” being undertaken by Republican activists frustrated by the lack of recent polling. This shows Scott Brown ahead, and the methodology consists of randomly scouring the phone book in select areas…
The results through New Year’s Eve were Brown 241, Coakley 216, Undecided 63. A further 201 refused and 213 were left pro-Brown phone messages. That works out to a slight Brown lead of 44.6 to 41.5 percent among those who responded.
But that comes with a big caveat: the areas polled were limited to Worchester and Cape Cod, with a little Quincy thrown in. These areas do not look like the rest of Massachusetts. In both Worchester and Barnstable (Cape Cod) counties, Obama defeated McCain by a margin of 56 to 42, or a margin 12 points lower than his statewide performance.
Adjust the margin, and this would put Coakley 9 points ahead statewide.
41 – She’ll definitely give a thumbs up – the only issue would be tat so many people are saying “Palin needs to stay out becasue this is Massachusetts”. I diagree.
48 – Heath, I realize you diagree with many of us but you’ve been areound here long enough to realize that very few of us are single-issue pro-lifers. I would expect more from you.
“Why are all you guys high on this pro-choice guy anyway?” I for one am not high on this guy (a seat that is very difficult to actually win anyway.) However, I realize that he is the best we can do for MA. I assume that the GOP of MA are OK with this guy so I shall not oppose him on principle. For the record, I wish him well, but according to some Palinite support is not welcome so I’ll say it quietly. Shhhhh, I support this guy. We are in a no win situation. If we support this guy, people suggest that we are no longer principled. If we do not support him, we are labeled as Purists. Fine and dandy.
Haha Narciso, one day they want the Tea Party movement thrown under the bus with the rest of the Conservative movement, the next day they want the Tea Party to help out. I have no problem with the GOP candidates being supported by the Tea Party movement, but you do realize that some will cry ‘Populist’ and what ever else.
“Mighty big of you OJ!” Especially when a few of your friends want to throw the Tea Party under the bus. For the record, I am not a card carrying member of The Tea Party, but I am an officially a member of the GOP in case you guys doubt. Further, I have never been offically registured as a Democrat in Ohio (or the 49 other states,) just something to think about before some try to throw us under the bus.
“So, OJ, I guess you are endorsing the Democrat in the Mass Race. After all, that is the same logic you used to say that Romney was supporting Dede.” With respect, I quietly endorsed the GOP candidate because a few members of your camp (not you) suggest that for whatever reason, a Palinite endorsement would do more harm than good. I thought further we were told if we make too much noise, it would wake up the Dems, so I am respecting that.
I realize that a few of your camp members have no trouble with Queen Dede, but I thought that with respect Thunder, you are not a Dedeite. I do not know what is so hard to understand, but as Left-Wing as she is, the main problem was that she was undemocratically chosen by political gangsters. I do not care per se, who Mr. Romney, Mrs. Palin or any other major player endorses in FL, IL, KY or any other primary contest. However, NY-23 was about standing up to political gansters. I know that some of your camp members blame my camp for interfering with NY-23. Well here is my take, a few people have such disrespect for the common people that she chose the candidate for NY-23 because supposedly the people of NY-23 are too freaking stupid to choose their candidate. For the sake of arguement, I will concede the the average IQ and education level in my district might be slightly lower than the average IQ is your district or somebody else’s district, but I am not going to stand for my party chairman (locally or at the state level) dictate to me and my fellow district members what to do. Often, I do not entirely agree with my local party chairman does or thinks, but I support him (my county chairman) and all the people who came before him because he and they have always respected the people whether they agree with the people, so in short I have no problem with live and let live. But when the party declares war on the people, the people will stand up for their rights and count who is on their side.
To my knowledge (feel free to show me otherwise) there was no shenanigans in choosing the MA candidate, so I do not oppose him (and shhhhh, I support him.) Thus NY-23 is not even apples to oranges when comparing it to other contests.
OHIO JOE Says:
I realize that a few of your camp members have no trouble with Queen Dede, but I thought that with respect Thunder, you are not a Dedeite. I do not know what is so hard to understand, but as Left-Wing as she is, the main problem was that she was undemocratically chosen by political gangsters.
The problem is the Romney Camp did not endorse Dede, even though you claim time and time again he did. Using your own logic, suggest that you are endorsing the Democrat since you have not come out to endorse the Republican.
Once again, the Romney camp had nothing to do with Dede no matter how badly you twist the facts.
Show me the “political gangsters” or the “shenanigans” in NY23. They’re a figment of your imagination. No one in the Romney ‘camp’ liked ‘Queen Dede’. Most just wanted to keep the seat Republican, that’s all. You might want to move on from NY23. It was a disaster, and it’s over. You can try to justify Palin’s involvement until the cows come home, but it’s not going to change the outcome.
OJ, Romney is out there doing more than Huck and Palin combined to help conservatives. Palin’s PAC is all about Palin. What is she doing, except promoting herself? How committed is she to getting Republicans elected? She said she’ll help anyone, dem, indie, or not. She does not have time for the GOP. In the past 6 months since she stepped down, she’s made it clear she wants nothing to do with the GOP. How does that help us? She knows very well that the only real home for conservatives is the GOP. She’s threatened a third party run when she knows it will hand Obama another 4 years.
“You can try to justify Palin’s involvement until the cows come home, but it’s not going to change the outcome.
” I bloody well can, frankly, I am disgusted that you do not care about the wishes of the people and with the greatest respect, I am glad that you are not my chairmen. Politically, I might agree with you at least as much as my current county chairman, but he at least respects the people under him. Frankly, if you cannot see the shenanigans produced by the county chairmen in NY-23 against their own people, then perhaps those 4 gangsters should move to Oregon and see how you like it.
With respect, you miss the point Thunder, your camp may very well in deed have had nothing what so ever with promoting the NY-23 shenanigans in the first place. However, it either did not bother your camp leader enough (or Mr. Huckabee for that matter) or he felt enough of his camp members were OK with what happened, take your pick.
I know you would think the 900K the RNC ponied up to an obviously flawed candidate, had a little to do with it, but that fact, much like her efforts to actually contact the McDonnell and Christie camps. So if they block her from appearing, it’s her fault. If she actually points out a huge flaw in legislation, it’s a distraction. Romney on the other hand, should be canonized, even though there
may be some doctrinal hangups
With respect, you miss the point Thunder, your camp may very well in deed have had nothing what so ever with promoting the NY-23 shenanigans in the first place. However, it either did not bother your camp leader enough (or Mr. Huckabee for that matter) or he felt enough of his camp members were OK with what happened, take your pick.
Once again, you are placing blame where blame does not belong, and that is my problem. It is not Romney’s responsibility to get involved with every bone head move members of the party create. The fact that he refused to endorse the Republican Candidate “Spoke Volumes” and if you can’t understand the meaning of that, I don’t know what to tell you.
But once again, based on your own perverse logic, Palin and you are now endorsing the Democrat Candidate since neither she nor you have endorsed the Republican Candidate.
“Frankly, if you cannot see the shenanigans produced by the county chairmen in NY-23 against their own people, then perhaps those 4 gangsters should move to Oregon and see how you like it.”
Not to beat a dead horse, but there were just as many shenanigans on the Hoffman side of NY-23 as on the Scozzafava side. He endorses then unendorses her, runs for the nomination even though he doesn’t live in the district, has no idea about the issues affecting the people of NY-23, refuses to debate his opponents, and he brings in people, like himself, who don’t have a clue about the district but just want to wage an ideological holy war within the GOP.
Maybe the county chairmen in NY-23 made a mistake, but I’d still trust their judgement about what to do in their district more then Palin or Erick Erickson or Tim Pawlenty.
“Maybe the county chairmen in NY-23 made a mistake, but I’d still trust their judgement about what to do in their district more then Palin or Erick Erickson or Tim Pawlenty.”
Local party chairmen are arguably the most cronyistic (and often corrupt) people in all politics. I for one would be more comfortable leaving GOP candidate selection to a monkey haphazardly slapping a banana aginst a touch screen ballot.
I’m a firm advocate of letting local GOP voters decide their candidate…IN PRIMARIES. However, if a candidate is selected via backroom deals by party officials, I am much more comfortable with the national voter base over-ruling them. I trust Palin, Erickson, Pawlenty, Fred Thompson, and the sum total of all ther supporters on Twitter far more than local party chairs.
# Adam Brickley Says:
I’m a firm advocate of letting local GOP voters decide their candidate…IN PRIMARIES. However, if a candidate is selected via backroom deals by party officials, I am much more comfortable with the national voter base over-ruling them. I trust Palin, Erickson, Pawlenty, Fred Thompson, and the sum total of all ther supporters on Twitter far more than local party chairs.
I agree 100% with your position. My problem is OJ is blaming Romney for the Dede affair even though he had nothing to do with it. He has on multiple times said because Romney did not come out forcefully against Dede he was therefore supporting her, which was not his position.
67. Who cares what the party officials did in NY23? They didn’t have many options, and Dede was winning until outside forces came in. Hoffman was a terrible candidate, too. The seat could have remained in GOP hands.
“67. Who cares what the party officials did in NY23?” Yeah of course you do not care, as long as there is no shenanigans in Oregon, see no problems, hear no problems. So the people of NY-23 are just simpleton puppets of outside forces who are too stupid to vote? C’mon!
I repeat: WHAT SHENANIGNANS? Do you have specific information that they were corrupt, broke the law, violated ethics codes, etc.? They chose a candidate they thought could win, is about all I see. Maybe there was some cronyism, I don’t know. But Scozzafava was winning in the polls, and would have held the seat until the gang who couldn’t shoot straight came along.
“They chose a candidate they thought could win” – Overuling the electorate and denying a vote or even a convention. Undemocratic, always a bad move, and worthy of punishment.
I repeat: WHAT SHENANIGNANS? Do you have specific information that they were corrupt, broke the law, violated ethics codes, etc.? They chose a candidate they thought could win, is about all I see. Maybe there was some cronyism, I don’t know. But Scozzafava was winning in the polls, and would have held the seat until the gang who couldn’t shoot straight came along.
While I usually agree with you, I for one thought that Dede should have been defeated. This leaves a wide open primary so a real conservative can be elected. However, my problem with OJ is he keeps blaming Romney for Dede and he had nothing to do with her selections nor should he be blamed for the final out come. As for Shenanigans, I know of known other than those in OJ’s head.
# Adam Brickley Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“They chose a candidate they thought could win” – Overuling the electorate and denying a vote or even a convention. Undemocratic, always a bad move, and worthy of punishment.
Without question, you are right. (But lets not blame someone who had nothing to do with it as OJ keeps trying to do!).
“As for Shenanigans, I know of known other than those in OJ’s head.” Failing to hold a primary is shenanigans enough for me. As for blaming Mr. Romney (and Mr. Huckabee) you do have a point that they did not do the shenanigans themselves. However, I do not give them a pass because I for one believe they should have stood up. I realize that I will not get many people to see this until they experience such shenanigans in their our districts. I guess we will agree to disagree.
Oh wa, wa, OJ. You’re making a mountain out of nothing – not even a molehill- just to skewer Romney because you can’t find another weapon with which to beat him.
Try looking at your own gal’s strategy and tell me she is doing anything-ANYTHING to help defeat Obama. Her PAC is a joke, and she is promoting no one but herself. She’s even threatening to blow up the GOP and go third party.
OJ, I’d love to hear what you would say if Romney were flirting with the idea of a third party, thus handing 2012 to Obama on a silver patter. It would make your current diatribes against Romney look like cupcakes.
“As for Shenanigans, I know of known other than those in OJ’s head.” Failing to hold a primary is shenanigans enough for me. As for blaming Mr. Romney (and Mr. Huckabee) you do have a point that they did not do the shenanigans themselves. However, I do not give them a pass because I for one believe they should have stood up. I realize that I will not get many people to see this until they experience such shenanigans in their our districts. I guess we will agree to disagree
So, now do you hold Palin to the same scrutiny since she has not endorse the MA Candidate?
# Martha Says:
Try looking at your own gal’s strategy and tell me she is doing anything-ANYTHING to help defeat Obama. Her PAC is a joke, and she is promoting no one but herself. She’s even threatening to blow up the GOP and go third party.
Fortunately, Palin is not a serious candidate, and all she really wants to do is make money. She has shown she is very inept in every thing she does and has a lot of skeleton in her closet (which her supporters deny), which will prevent her from making a serious run.
“So, now do you hold Palin to the same scrutiny since she has not endorse the MA Candidate?” What???, there are lots of states where the big 4 has not endorsed anybody. However, there is no reason to stand on principle one way or the other. Look, there is a reason why countries are saying something about the internal politics of Iran and Hondures, but are not saying anything about other countries. NY-23 is a special case frankly not apples to oranages to any other contest. Yes, I prefer one candidate over the other in FL, KY and CA, but there is no principle at stake in those contests, so although I am cheering for one candidate or the other and may have even given a very small donatation in a case or too, why the @#$% should I care what Mrs. Palin and Mr. Romney say about those contests. There is no purpose per se for them to get mixed up in those contests because there is no principle at stake.
85. Yes, I meant NJ. Sorry! What some need to understand is that an ‘east coast’ GOP is much different than a ‘West Coast’ GOP, or ‘midwest’ or ‘southern’. Mitt knows the easties. We can’t and should not push everyone into the same, narrow little boxes.
Making sounds that Palin will form a 3rd party if folks don’t kiss her ring shows just how shallow she is. She’s only in it for her. Not for the country she claims she loves. She has become the laughing stock of the country. And Marth is right that the MSM is making every attempt to tie the GOP to her skirt tails, and make her the face of the GOP. Let’s not allow that to happen. I hope Brown calls her and quiety and off the record tells her to stay home. He has serious work to accomplish, and can’t have the time to be distracted with putting out the fires that Palin will surely light.
Also too, IMO, in order for brown to win in Mass, he needs to siphon off a whole lot of democrate votes. To do that, he has to keep the far, far far righties at a distance, and make a good run to the center right. Mitt Romney won in that state – and not just by GOP votes alone. Brown won’t win by alienating right leaning democrates.
“just to skewer Romney because you can’t find another weapon with which to beat him.” I guess you may have missed Mr. Steyn today. BTW, you are making a mountain out of a hill when you claim that Mrs. Palin will go Third Party, she is only threatening to keep you people in line. Unfortunately, you are not interested in learning the lesson and keeping the civil war in our party under control.
OHIO JOE Says:
There is no purpose per se for them to get mixed up in those contests because there is no principle at stake
How about the principle of letting the people in NY 23 decide and not an outside interest groups. That is the Principle that Romney stood on when it came to NY 23. But, I guess you choice your principles based on what your candidate says. There are reasons that serious candidates don’t want Palin near them.
I guess we forget that the people of NY-23 voted for the so-called outside interest by about 46 to 6. Oh I forgot, the people of NY-23 are too stupid to make their own decisions and they need 4 Golden Boys to enlighten them.
# OHIO JOE Says:
you are making a mountain out of a hill when you claim that Mrs. Palin will go Third Party, she is only threatening to keep you people in line. Unfortunately, you are not interested in learning the lesson and keeping the civil war in our party under control.
There’s growing speculation from former aids, political journalists, and even Rush Limbaugh himself that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is considering forming a third party alternative for conservatives. Palin, the former GOP vice presidential nominee who stunned the political world by resigning as governor two weeks ago with 18 months left in her term, also posted a link to a column speculating about such a move on her Facebook page.
Limbaugh: Palin Might Leave GOP For Third Party
Fortunately, I don’t think she has what it takes to make a serious run at it. She is too inept.
I guess we forget that the people of NY-23 voted for the so-called outside interest by about 46 to 6. Oh I forgot, the people of NY-23 are too stupid to make their own decisions and they need 4 Golden Boys to enlighten them
And yet you think the people of NY 23 couldn’t have figured it out themselves without Palin sticking her nose into it? I wonder who is really calling the people of NY 23 Stupid? All hail the Palin :O
I remember several months ago when OJ indicated on here that if Palin goes third party, he will let her go as his candidate. I haven’t heard that from him lately, but surely would like to along with Tommy Boy and Kristofer, and others. It sounds to me like it’s a little more of “Where she leads me, I will follow” than it was then.
Thanks for the compliment guys, haha. Well IG, so far, my candidate has proven worthy to follow; again the chances of her actually going third party are quite slim right now, but I am sure if by chance she does, it will be for a good reason.
It looks as if I was reading you right OJ…..you’re going to follow her to third party now if she goes…..you are soooooooooooooo smitten by this pretty point guard.
I’m just saying Obama….if she does go third party some of you will follow her, in spite of the fact that it is a sure fired way of getting another 4 years of Obama.
Obamacare. Does it matter if Romney played a sport or not? Maybe he lettered in Chess. I dunno. I frankly don’t care because he never brings it up. HoWEVER, instead of playing with a ball, he was working hard in school, on his mission, back in school and in his marriage and profession. That’s more than enough for me! \
“you are soooooooooooooo smitten by this pretty point guard.” If you guys would promote Conservatism, you would not have to worry about a Moose Hunting Hockey Mom Point guard starting a Third party.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Adam,
Like McDonnell and Christie, Brown may want not want Palin anywhere near his campaign.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Good Lord the GOP is hopeless.
Scott Brown cannot win in Illinois.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
No probably not, Kevin. Good thing the race is in Massachusetts.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
McCain’s endorsement shows that this race is attracting national attention and Brown might win if voting turn-out is low. We can wish. If more Republicans look at the race, it’s possible. Also…it wouldn’t hurt if some moderate Democrats put their support behind Brown.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Hahaha. For some reason I thought Scott Brown was the tea party guy running against Mark Kirk.
Forgive me for my ignorance!
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Also, if Republicans want Brown to pull off an upset, they might want to keep Palin behind wraps. If she endorses Brown, that could be political poison to the Brown campaign in the most liberal state in the country.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
#5:
Kevin, we understand you getting confused. You are a Democrat after all…
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I figured it was something like that — though the idea of Romney and McCain endorsing an opponent of Kirk is pretty unlikely. If that happened, I would agree that the party had lost it’s mind. I
I may not agree with Kirk on a lot of things, but he’s the only candidate who can win for us.
Back to Brown — it’s the longest of shots, but we can dream.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Well, Scott Brown is still going to lose. The last poll has him down twenty points, and he’s a Republican in Massachusetts.
If he won though – that would be an excellent win for the GOP.
1. Health care would be heavily compromised and the Dems would need to bend over backwards to get Snowe’s support
2. It would greatly improve the morale of the GOP and help candidate recruiting efforts
3. The media narrative would be toxic to the Democrats for several weeks
But while it’s a dream come true for Republicans, it’s exactly that. A dream. It’s not going to happen.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 pm
I remain very dubious of this strategy to nationalize a race where Barack Obama’s approval rating is still 55% and Obamacare still finds majority support in Rasmussen polling.
Didn’t Coulter find some local issue that would prove very damaging to Coakley? That would seem to be stronger than promoting the narrative that you would be the 41st Senator against a piece of legislation that the majority of Bay state likely voters support.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Here’s Ruffini giving it a shot:
Evidence Scott Brown is Within Single Digits in Massachusetts
By Patrick Ruffini
http://thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/evidence-scott-brown-is-within-single-digits-in-massachusetts
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:16 pm
#1 I really don’t think Palin could be any more unpopular in the Bay State as Romney was when he left the governorship.
Could a Republican Win Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat?
by Nate Silver
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/could-republican-win-ted-kennedys.html
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
McCain plus Mitt and the people over at http://www.mittromneycentral.com/2009/12/30/scott-brown-could-be-our-41st-vote-in-the-senate/ are all on board now. Let’s keep the pressure on the other movers and shakers to speak out for Scott Brown. We want McCain and Palin to send their facebook supporters over to Brown’s page and twitter/youtube accounts. Mitt did it and thousands have moved to support Scott Brown. Just imagine if Mccain and Palin did it as well!
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:27 pm
#9 A loss, if it’s in single-digits, is still toxic for the Democrats nationally.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Not sure if Brown can win, but if it’s close enough that it forces the national Dems to spend money and time in, of all places, Massachusetts, then it will be a good thing regardless of who wins.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
The first line is conceivably true, the RNC only ponied up 50K, according to blogs for victory. However he has become the Tea Party candidate, and frankly if Romney didn’t committ to a race in his own state, well that would be a bit silly. The last time we were in a similar cycle to this, the GOP won every race, 1993-1994.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Palin will go in at least with a Facebook note. Not endorsing Brown would reflect poorly on her – so she should say something even if Brown doesn’t ask. Plus, this is a chance to extend an olive branch by endorsing a pro-choice candidate in a tough race.
Second – Palin could be effective in mobilizing voters to flood the polls and generate small donations. Remember that this is a base-mobilization election more than it is a play-to-the-center election. It’s far more important that hard-core Republicans be revved up than to aoid any potential blow among moderates.
Really no down side for getting Palin in at least on the margins – it would look like the GOP is being petulant if they keep her out – and Brown’s national effort is largely based on Palin-supporting tea party activists. If he personally asks Palin to stay out or even looks like he’s going that direction, his vollunteer effort disappearrs in a puff of smoke and his chances go down the toilet. Palin is going in.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
What do you mean a pro-choice candidate? Scott Brown has received the endorsement of some Right to Life groups hasn’t he?
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:46 pm
19 – thought I read he was stated pro-choice. Will couble check.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 pm
17 – Looks like we’re both right. Doesn’t seem like there’s too much out there regarding his postion officially. And there are some quishy, non-definitive statements from him in the media – slthough he comes out against partial birth and strongly for parental notification.
See: http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2009/11/20/the-globe-scott-brown-and-abortion.aspx
That said – he has received the endorsement off Massachusetts Right to Life:
http://blog.masscitizensforlife.org/2010/01/pac-says-electing-brown-will-defeat.html
The first link I provided is clearly a leftisist source – so more inclined to trust the Right to Lifers on the issue. That said, his official position could use some clarifying.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Apoligies, it’s Mass. CITIZENS for Life. Probably and important distinction as Right to Life is a national label with interests outside Massachusetts.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Scott Brown on Abortion
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
January 4th, 2010 at 12:02 am
22 – Dang, Aron, you beat me too it – was literally just about to post that exact paragraph.
So – to review: Pro-Choice overall, but highly supportive of parental notification and against partial birth.
Not stellar for me personally, but certainly not bad for Massachusetts.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:09 am
When McDonnell told Palin, “Thanks, by no thanks” he just got stronger in the polls. Why would Brown giving a cold shoulder to her hurt her in a much more liberal Massachusetts? Believe me, I want all the votes we can get for Brown, but McDonnell seemed to do best by asking Palin to stand aside and watch from a distance.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:09 am
You’d think the NRSC would have released a poll if this has any chance of being close. I kind of do want to see at least one before the election. It looks like its one of the options of PPP (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/), but I guess more people care about Connecticut.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:15 am
I would love to see a poll where people were asked “Knowing the current condition of the country and what has happened over the last year, if an election were held today between Barack Obama and John McCain, for whom would you vote?”
I bet McCain would do a lot better than he did in November 2008.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:23 am
26. Anyone would poll better vs Obama right now. Remember that people were drunk with fervor in their support for him. Now they’re suffering through the hangover, communicating with the Almighty through the great white telephone.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:26 am
23. Would Huck or Palin and their congregations of supporters be able to support a pro-choice candidate?
January 4th, 2010 at 12:30 am
#26 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics conducted a poll with that question October 27-28.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/102909_poll.pdf
Obama 48%
McCain 41%
Since Obama’s disapproval is now three points higher in the most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, my guess is that it’s probably 48-44, 48-43 Obama/McCain at this point.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:42 am
The priority is to stake this health care leviathan, other considerations are to be seen in relative terms. We have to go back to Edward Brooke to remember the last Republican Senator
January 4th, 2010 at 12:52 am
30. ’tis true, ’tis true. …
January 4th, 2010 at 1:14 am
17. I disagree with you, Adam. Hard core Repubs are probably already with him. It’s the moderates that he will not want to offend.
My guess is that Brown will hope to avoid the Palin question and will do exactly what both McDonnell and Christie did when asked – be vague and try to change the subject.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:18 am
Speaking of Palin and Massachusetts, here’s an op-ed about Palin in the Daily Tribune of Waltham, Massachusetts:
The iron-plated woman
By Kara Miller
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/opinion/x1444027669/Miller-The-iron-plated-woman
January 4th, 2010 at 1:21 am
#37:
What we need to have any shot at this, and it is a still a long shot, is to keep this race quiet. Coakley and the Democrats are complacent; they think they’ve already won the election. We need to mobilize our forces without rousing the Democrats to fight back. Having outside, national figures endorse Brown is okay, but having them campaign there might be too much. Romney is probably the only real national Republican who can get away with it since this is his home state. If Palin descends on MA, it will generate a lot of news coverage and might wake up the slumbering Democrats.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Sorry, #34 is addresed to Martha in what is now #32.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:23 am
The issue here is that Browns funding and vollunteer base are among the national tea party types. Any overt move away from Palin and the money dries up along with the phone-bankers – so there won’t be enough resources to capitalize on any theoretical poll bounce.
Personally, I’m also expecting Palin herself to issue a formal endorsement via Facebook whether asked for it or not. If she says nothing about this race – especially as her supporters are among the strongest Bown-backers at the national level – then it reflects poorly on her. I don’t think she’d take kindly to any “please withold endorsement” entreaties from the NRSC. She will issue an endorsement, and that by nature will raise the profile of the race.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:25 am
34 – correct. However, a Facebook move would generaate a lot of donations or phone-bankers. Nobody is suggesting Palin (or anyother national Repub with the possible exception of Romney) hit the trail for Brown. However, what he does need is money and volunteers to saturate the electorate.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:31 am
#37:
Certainly a Facebook message to all 1,151,648 of her fans could generate some enthusiasm and maybe even money, and that is all good, but it still raises the profile of the race. Like I said, our best bet is to keep all this under wraps for as long as we can.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:39 am
38 – That’s correct – but if we keep the profile low until all the way to election day then we defeat the purpose. The goal is to blow it up late enough that the opposition can’t properly mobilize in the remaining time. I would time a Palin endorsement for around 8 AM on January 11th. That’s the day of Brown’s planned moneybomb, and going in eight days out is early enough to have an effect (and ensure that the funds can actually be spent) but late enough to ensure that the Dems can’t get it together in time.
Note the that NRCC and the conservative media didn’t go all in for Anh Joseph Cao until election week – but they did go in for him.
We need to lay low for now – but I think January 11th is D-Day.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:54 am
#39:
I hope you’re right. It would just be so nice for the GOP to win a huge upset victory anywhere. A win or even a real close call in MA could really mobilize Republicans around the country and help give us momentum for the Midterm elections.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:25 am
Palin’s gotta give her folks the thumbs up on this, as the possibility of a Republican seat in Massachusetts should unite anyone that could ever call or have called themselves a Republican. Nothing big, just say that Scott’s a great guy who will work hard for the state and the country and be a force for reform, and that’s about all anyone could ask of her.
It’d be a respectful head-nod to him and reflect well on Palin.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:30 am
We are discussing the Scott Brown campaign and pushing for donations (and volunteers) at the “Conservative Talk Forum” website. The address for the discussion thread is:
http://nanosecondinv.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=genpoltical&thread=9786&page=1
Please feel free to stop in and solicit our forum members for help.
trap
January 4th, 2010 at 5:06 am
Scott Brown won’t win.
Don’t get your hopes up.
He loses by 9.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:14 am
I think a 9-point loss is a little optimistic considering that’s pretty much what Patrick Ruffini in post #11 claimed Coakley’s lead to be right now under the best-case scenario.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:15 am
January 4th, 2010 at 5:30 am
From Peter Gammons:
http://twitter.com/pgammo/status/7332089930
January 4th, 2010 at 7:19 am
Yes TB but people on here are carrying on like he is going to actually win.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Why are all you guys high on this pro-choice guy anyway?
January 4th, 2010 at 7:50 am
41 – She’ll definitely give a thumbs up – the only issue would be tat so many people are saying “Palin needs to stay out becasue this is Massachusetts”. I diagree.
48 – Heath, I realize you diagree with many of us but you’ve been areound here long enough to realize that very few of us are single-issue pro-lifers. I would expect more from you.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:51 am
47 – We’re carrying on like he’s actually viable and could win given the right set of circumstances – which is true.
January 4th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Why not give it a shot, to see what the local Tea Party apparatus can do.
January 4th, 2010 at 9:23 am
“Why are all you guys high on this pro-choice guy anyway?” I for one am not high on this guy (a seat that is very difficult to actually win anyway.) However, I realize that he is the best we can do for MA. I assume that the GOP of MA are OK with this guy so I shall not oppose him on principle. For the record, I wish him well, but according to some Palinite support is not welcome so I’ll say it quietly. Shhhhh, I support this guy. We are in a no win situation. If we support this guy, people suggest that we are no longer principled. If we do not support him, we are labeled as Purists. Fine and dandy.
January 4th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Haha Narciso, one day they want the Tea Party movement thrown under the bus with the rest of the Conservative movement, the next day they want the Tea Party to help out. I have no problem with the GOP candidates being supported by the Tea Party movement, but you do realize that some will cry ‘Populist’ and what ever else.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:00 am
“I have no problem with the GOP candidates being supported by the Tea Party movement”
Mighty big of you OJ!
January 4th, 2010 at 10:13 am
“Mighty big of you OJ!” Especially when a few of your friends want to throw the Tea Party under the bus. For the record, I am not a card carrying member of The Tea Party, but I am an officially a member of the GOP in case you guys doubt. Further, I have never been offically registured as a Democrat in Ohio (or the 49 other states,) just something to think about before some try to throw us under the bus.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:16 am
#46 Tommy Boy, I think that this was a slight…
January 4th, 2010 at 10:31 am
So, OJ, I guess you are endorsing the Democrat in the Mass Race. After all, that is the same logic you used to say that Romney was supporting Dede.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:41 am
There has been no polling done in this race. Nobody know where he stands. However, he is connecting well and could win.
January 4th, 2010 at 10:59 am
“So, OJ, I guess you are endorsing the Democrat in the Mass Race. After all, that is the same logic you used to say that Romney was supporting Dede.” With respect, I quietly endorsed the GOP candidate because a few members of your camp (not you) suggest that for whatever reason, a Palinite endorsement would do more harm than good. I thought further we were told if we make too much noise, it would wake up the Dems, so I am respecting that.
I realize that a few of your camp members have no trouble with Queen Dede, but I thought that with respect Thunder, you are not a Dedeite. I do not know what is so hard to understand, but as Left-Wing as she is, the main problem was that she was undemocratically chosen by political gangsters. I do not care per se, who Mr. Romney, Mrs. Palin or any other major player endorses in FL, IL, KY or any other primary contest. However, NY-23 was about standing up to political gansters. I know that some of your camp members blame my camp for interfering with NY-23. Well here is my take, a few people have such disrespect for the common people that she chose the candidate for NY-23 because supposedly the people of NY-23 are too freaking stupid to choose their candidate. For the sake of arguement, I will concede the the average IQ and education level in my district might be slightly lower than the average IQ is your district or somebody else’s district, but I am not going to stand for my party chairman (locally or at the state level) dictate to me and my fellow district members what to do. Often, I do not entirely agree with my local party chairman does or thinks, but I support him (my county chairman) and all the people who came before him because he and they have always respected the people whether they agree with the people, so in short I have no problem with live and let live. But when the party declares war on the people, the people will stand up for their rights and count who is on their side.
To my knowledge (feel free to show me otherwise) there was no shenanigans in choosing the MA candidate, so I do not oppose him (and shhhhh, I support him.) Thus NY-23 is not even apples to oranges when comparing it to other contests.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:17 am
The problem is the Romney Camp did not endorse Dede, even though you claim time and time again he did. Using your own logic, suggest that you are endorsing the Democrat since you have not come out to endorse the Republican.
Once again, the Romney camp had nothing to do with Dede no matter how badly you twist the facts.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:17 am
OJ,
Show me the “political gangsters” or the “shenanigans” in NY23. They’re a figment of your imagination. No one in the Romney ‘camp’ liked ‘Queen Dede’. Most just wanted to keep the seat Republican, that’s all. You might want to move on from NY23. It was a disaster, and it’s over. You can try to justify Palin’s involvement until the cows come home, but it’s not going to change the outcome.
OJ, Romney is out there doing more than Huck and Palin combined to help conservatives. Palin’s PAC is all about Palin. What is she doing, except promoting herself? How committed is she to getting Republicans elected? She said she’ll help anyone, dem, indie, or not. She does not have time for the GOP. In the past 6 months since she stepped down, she’s made it clear she wants nothing to do with the GOP. How does that help us? She knows very well that the only real home for conservatives is the GOP. She’s threatened a third party run when she knows it will hand Obama another 4 years.
Your selective outrage is appalling.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am
“You can try to justify Palin’s involvement until the cows come home, but it’s not going to change the outcome.
” I bloody well can, frankly, I am disgusted that you do not care about the wishes of the people and with the greatest respect, I am glad that you are not my chairmen. Politically, I might agree with you at least as much as my current county chairman, but he at least respects the people under him. Frankly, if you cannot see the shenanigans produced by the county chairmen in NY-23 against their own people, then perhaps those 4 gangsters should move to Oregon and see how you like it.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:26 am
With respect, you miss the point Thunder, your camp may very well in deed have had nothing what so ever with promoting the NY-23 shenanigans in the first place. However, it either did not bother your camp leader enough (or Mr. Huckabee for that matter) or he felt enough of his camp members were OK with what happened, take your pick.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I know you would think the 900K the RNC ponied up to an obviously flawed candidate, had a little to do with it, but that fact, much like her efforts to actually contact the McDonnell and Christie camps. So if they block her from appearing, it’s her fault. If she actually points out a huge flaw in legislation, it’s a distraction. Romney on the other hand, should be canonized, even though there
may be some doctrinal hangups
January 4th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Once again, you are placing blame where blame does not belong, and that is my problem. It is not Romney’s responsibility to get involved with every bone head move members of the party create. The fact that he refused to endorse the Republican Candidate “Spoke Volumes” and if you can’t understand the meaning of that, I don’t know what to tell you.
But once again, based on your own perverse logic, Palin and you are now endorsing the Democrat Candidate since neither she nor you have endorsed the Republican Candidate.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:52 am
#63:
“Frankly, if you cannot see the shenanigans produced by the county chairmen in NY-23 against their own people, then perhaps those 4 gangsters should move to Oregon and see how you like it.”
Not to beat a dead horse, but there were just as many shenanigans on the Hoffman side of NY-23 as on the Scozzafava side. He endorses then unendorses her, runs for the nomination even though he doesn’t live in the district, has no idea about the issues affecting the people of NY-23, refuses to debate his opponents, and he brings in people, like himself, who don’t have a clue about the district but just want to wage an ideological holy war within the GOP.
Maybe the county chairmen in NY-23 made a mistake, but I’d still trust their judgement about what to do in their district more then Palin or Erick Erickson or Tim Pawlenty.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“Not to beat a dead horse”
Then can we please stop beating said dead horse?
“Maybe the county chairmen in NY-23 made a mistake, but I’d still trust their judgement about what to do in their district more then Palin or Erick Erickson or Tim Pawlenty.”
Local party chairmen are arguably the most cronyistic (and often corrupt) people in all politics. I for one would be more comfortable leaving GOP candidate selection to a monkey haphazardly slapping a banana aginst a touch screen ballot.
I’m a firm advocate of letting local GOP voters decide their candidate…IN PRIMARIES. However, if a candidate is selected via backroom deals by party officials, I am much more comfortable with the national voter base over-ruling them. I trust Palin, Erickson, Pawlenty, Fred Thompson, and the sum total of all ther supporters on Twitter far more than local party chairs.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I agree 100% with your position. My problem is OJ is blaming Romney for the Dede affair even though he had nothing to do with it. He has on multiple times said because Romney did not come out forcefully against Dede he was therefore supporting her, which was not his position.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
FYI, Adam Brickley:
http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-new-wildrose-alliance-mlas.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChasingApplePie+%28Chasing+Apple+Pie%29
January 4th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
#56 Cincinatti Kid,
I know. I still thought it was a funny analogy.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
67. Who cares what the party officials did in NY23? They didn’t have many options, and Dede was winning until outside forces came in. Hoffman was a terrible candidate, too. The seat could have remained in GOP hands.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
66. Agreed Jonathan.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“67. Who cares what the party officials did in NY23?” Yeah of course you do not care, as long as there is no shenanigans in Oregon, see no problems, hear no problems. So the people of NY-23 are just simpleton puppets of outside forces who are too stupid to vote? C’mon!
January 4th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
73. OJ,
I repeat: WHAT SHENANIGNANS? Do you have specific information that they were corrupt, broke the law, violated ethics codes, etc.? They chose a candidate they thought could win, is about all I see. Maybe there was some cronyism, I don’t know. But Scozzafava was winning in the polls, and would have held the seat until the gang who couldn’t shoot straight came along.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“They chose a candidate they thought could win” – Overuling the electorate and denying a vote or even a convention. Undemocratic, always a bad move, and worthy of punishment.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
While I usually agree with you, I for one thought that Dede should have been defeated. This leaves a wide open primary so a real conservative can be elected. However, my problem with OJ is he keeps blaming Romney for Dede and he had nothing to do with her selections nor should he be blamed for the final out come. As for Shenanigans, I know of known other than those in OJ’s head.
January 4th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Without question, you are right. (But lets not blame someone who had nothing to do with it as OJ keeps trying to do!).
January 4th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
“As for Shenanigans, I know of known other than those in OJ’s head.” Failing to hold a primary is shenanigans enough for me. As for blaming Mr. Romney (and Mr. Huckabee) you do have a point that they did not do the shenanigans themselves. However, I do not give them a pass because I for one believe they should have stood up. I realize that I will not get many people to see this until they experience such shenanigans in their our districts. I guess we will agree to disagree.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Oh wa, wa, OJ. You’re making a mountain out of nothing – not even a molehill- just to skewer Romney because you can’t find another weapon with which to beat him.
Try looking at your own gal’s strategy and tell me she is doing anything-ANYTHING to help defeat Obama. Her PAC is a joke, and she is promoting no one but herself. She’s even threatening to blow up the GOP and go third party.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
OJ, I’d love to hear what you would say if Romney were flirting with the idea of a third party, thus handing 2012 to Obama on a silver patter. It would make your current diatribes against Romney look like cupcakes.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
So, now do you hold Palin to the same scrutiny since she has not endorse the MA Candidate?
January 4th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Fortunately, Palin is not a serious candidate, and all she really wants to do is make money. She has shown she is very inept in every thing she does and has a lot of skeleton in her closet (which her supporters deny), which will prevent her from making a serious run.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Romney endorsed Brown. Kiss of success. Look what happened in NY and VA with Mitt’s help.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
82. Let’s hope she stays OUT of Mass senate race. I don’t want to see a NY 23 repeat.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
You mean New Jersey I assume? And your right, there further away she is, the better the chances.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Keep in mind that a lot of her facebook ‘fans’ are not real ‘fans’ at all, but folks that like a good laugh now and then.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
83. LOL
January 4th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
86. lol lol lol
January 4th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“So, now do you hold Palin to the same scrutiny since she has not endorse the MA Candidate?” What???, there are lots of states where the big 4 has not endorsed anybody. However, there is no reason to stand on principle one way or the other. Look, there is a reason why countries are saying something about the internal politics of Iran and Hondures, but are not saying anything about other countries. NY-23 is a special case frankly not apples to oranages to any other contest. Yes, I prefer one candidate over the other in FL, KY and CA, but there is no principle at stake in those contests, so although I am cheering for one candidate or the other and may have even given a very small donatation in a case or too, why the @#$% should I care what Mrs. Palin and Mr. Romney say about those contests. There is no purpose per se for them to get mixed up in those contests because there is no principle at stake.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
85. Yes, I meant NJ. Sorry! What some need to understand is that an ‘east coast’ GOP is much different than a ‘West Coast’ GOP, or ‘midwest’ or ‘southern’. Mitt knows the easties. We can’t and should not push everyone into the same, narrow little boxes.
Making sounds that Palin will form a 3rd party if folks don’t kiss her ring shows just how shallow she is. She’s only in it for her. Not for the country she claims she loves. She has become the laughing stock of the country. And Marth is right that the MSM is making every attempt to tie the GOP to her skirt tails, and make her the face of the GOP. Let’s not allow that to happen. I hope Brown calls her and quiety and off the record tells her to stay home. He has serious work to accomplish, and can’t have the time to be distracted with putting out the fires that Palin will surely light.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Also too, IMO, in order for brown to win in Mass, he needs to siphon off a whole lot of democrate votes. To do that, he has to keep the far, far far righties at a distance, and make a good run to the center right. Mitt Romney won in that state – and not just by GOP votes alone. Brown won’t win by alienating right leaning democrates.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
“just to skewer Romney because you can’t find another weapon with which to beat him.” I guess you may have missed Mr. Steyn today. BTW, you are making a mountain out of a hill when you claim that Mrs. Palin will go Third Party, she is only threatening to keep you people in line. Unfortunately, you are not interested in learning the lesson and keeping the civil war in our party under control.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
How about the principle of letting the people in NY 23 decide and not an outside interest groups. That is the Principle that Romney stood on when it came to NY 23. But, I guess you choice your principles based on what your candidate says. There are reasons that serious candidates don’t want Palin near them.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I guess we forget that the people of NY-23 voted for the so-called outside interest by about 46 to 6. Oh I forgot, the people of NY-23 are too stupid to make their own decisions and they need 4 Golden Boys to enlighten them.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Limbaugh: Palin Might Leave GOP For Third Party
Fortunately, I don’t think she has what it takes to make a serious run at it. She is too inept.
January 4th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
sorry forgot link for 95.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907155492/editorial/limbaugh-palin-might-leave-gop-for-third-party.html
January 4th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
And yet you think the people of NY 23 couldn’t have figured it out themselves without Palin sticking her nose into it? I wonder who is really calling the people of NY 23 Stupid? All hail the Palin :O
January 4th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
96, and how is congressman Hoffman voting in Congress now a days?
Never mind. Case closed.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
97. Youbetcha.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I remember several months ago when OJ indicated on here that if Palin goes third party, he will let her go as his candidate. I haven’t heard that from him lately, but surely would like to along with Tommy Boy and Kristofer, and others. It sounds to me like it’s a little more of “Where she leads me, I will follow” than it was then.
January 4th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Abortion is pure evil AB.
January 4th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Not only did Romney NOT endorse Dede he made a point of saying that HE COULD NOT IN GOOD FAITH SUPPORT HER.
OJ is a dishonest hack (harsh but true).
January 4th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Heath, dishonest hack would be Brickley or Lorelli. OJ is paranoid delusional.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Thanks for the compliment guys, haha. Well IG, so far, my candidate has proven worthy to follow; again the chances of her actually going third party are quite slim right now, but I am sure if by chance she does, it will be for a good reason.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
OJ,
A good reason? Good for who? Us or Palin? She surely loves the limelight, though. Doesn’t she?
January 5th, 2010 at 12:34 am
It looks as if I was reading you right OJ…..you’re going to follow her to third party now if she goes…..you are soooooooooooooo smitten by this pretty point guard.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:35 am
She’s not running third party, folks.
It’s 2012, 2016 OR 2020 as an R for the lady.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:38 am
106. Has Mitt ever played ANY sport?
He looks rather stiff and uncoordinated. Although he’s very smart, of course. Probably no time for sports… study study study
January 5th, 2010 at 12:38 am
I’m just saying Obama….if she does go third party some of you will follow her, in spite of the fact that it is a sure fired way of getting another 4 years of Obama.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:40 am
He plays them a lot with his family, but compared to his sons, he isn’t good at them. His wife is a champion equestrian rider however.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Obamacare. Does it matter if Romney played a sport or not? Maybe he lettered in Chess. I dunno. I frankly don’t care because he never brings it up. HoWEVER, instead of playing with a ball, he was working hard in school, on his mission, back in school and in his marriage and profession. That’s more than enough for me! \
January 5th, 2010 at 5:23 am
“you are soooooooooooooo smitten by this pretty point guard.” If you guys would promote Conservatism, you would not have to worry about a Moose Hunting Hockey Mom Point guard starting a Third party.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:39 am
OJ, OJ, OJ.
Who is not promoting conservatism? Your gal does not have the market on conservatism – at all.
However, she does have it on arrogance, recklessness, division, narcissism, and intellectual laziness.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
So apparently, the Palin and Huck followers can’t think for themselves and they need their leaders to tell them what to think and who to support?
Geeze. No wonder were out of power.