The beauty of Palin’s move tonite is she’s poised to “officially” enter either way, if Mitt wins in SC & FL, she’s in; if Newt succeeds in prolonging it, she’s ulimately in.
The ironic part is the best example of a need to vet candidates is Sarah Palin herself. However with the candidates in the race now using liberal talking points to try to damage Romney I think it’s time to wrap this thing up.
“The beauty of Palin’s move tonite is she’s poised to “officially” enter either way, if Mitt wins in SC & FL, she’s in; if Newt succeeds in prolonging it, she’s ulimately in.”
Pull your head out of your hindparts and buzz off. Romney’s support level, filing deadlines, the momentum from impending wins Romney is likely to achieve, the money race, and last but not least – Palin’s own approval rating (or lack there of) essentially preclude her from entering the race.
The only people I can really see switching over because of this would be those who were backing Santorum as the Conservative underdog BECAUSE they thought he had the best shot to beat Mitt.
I think Palin’s transformed and lost even more credibility than she had to begin with. As extremists of the party rallied to her, she lost perspective and conformed to her constituency rather than the other way around.
11. MassCon, You’d take Perry over Santorum? That surprises me. There’s a lot I don’t like about Rum, but I still think he’d be better than Perry. Rum, I think, is at least competent and principled.
Dumbest thing I have ever heard. Extending the race just for the sake of extending the race? If she doesn’t even have the guts (or the brain) to make a substantive argument in favor of voting for Newt, what good is she doing? Luckily, I imagine anyone smart enough to vote for Mitt won’t be paying any attention to her nonsense.
13 – Nah … Santorum is my #2. He is a distant #2, but he wouldn’t be any worse than George W. Bush. Perry and Newt would be far worse. They aren’t electable though so I don’t think we would ever have to worry about them in the White House.
Yes. I am more of a liberty-oriented Conservative and a strong believer in the power of interstate competition via the 10th Amendment.
Santorum is a top-down type. He was a legislator with no executive experience, no leadership abilities, and he was a go-along-to-get-along type. I hate the man personally, as well. He’s an angry person with a vindictive streak. He could never lead Washington toward any consensus because he’s so abrasive and reactionary.
Perry has major problems, but at least he could conceivably lead an initiative to a successful conclusion in Washington.
Come on, Santorum is clearly, clearly better than Perry. He avoided the Bain attacks, is knowledgeable, argues for pragmatism (note his taking Newt to task for his Social Security fantasy) despite having firm principles, and has a coherent philosophy which doesn’t appear to have been developed while drinking one night at a hunting range. If he wasn’t such a grump, and if he hadn’t lost by 18 points 6 years ago, I’d probably be supporting him right now. What is it about Perry that finally sold you? His winning smile? His propensity to sue states for having their own voting laws from his lofty perch as a 10th amendment champion? Inquiring minds want to know.
20. Well, let’s just hope and pray it doesn’t come to that. Let’s just elect Mitt and not worry about what Perry or Santorum would do in the White House.
Perry has not sold me anything. The man is Bush with less honor.
The others are just worse.
I can’t stand Santorum, personally. If I had to see the man’s face on TV for 4 years, I’d cancel my cable. Plus, he has so many bad relationships in Congress, I just can’t see how he’d lead an initiative.
With Perry, we’d have an incompetent dunce figurehead in the White House who would sign whatever the Republicans in Congress threw at him.
With Santorum, we’d have a NeoCon power monger in the White House who would be the subject of constant media trashing whose political capital would be practically gone within weeks of being inaugurated. He would fight too hard for his belief systems, and blow everything up if he didn’t get what he wanted in the bills.
Here’s the truth: everybody who’s run for President in the last 50 years, except maybe Ron Paul, is a top-down type. Or at least likely to become a top-down type in office. FDR started running in 1932 on states rights and the heavy-hand of the federal government. He argued that Hoover was doing too much. But no one voluntarily surrenders power. Obama, the great Iraq skeptic, the great opponent of detention, and legislator is now off assassinating American citizens, starting new wars, declaring Congress in recess when it’s not, etc, etc. We have institutional checks in place precisely because it makes no sense to expect men to check themselves. And if you prefer Perry because he’s given lip-service to the 10th amendment I suggest you A.) Consider his incentives as a Governor versus Santorum’s incentives as a Senator (hint: one was a state officer, the other a federal) and B.) Consider how easily he’s abandoned his 10th amendment principles in Virginia, on gay marriage, on abortion- essentially whenever it suited him to do so.
“Consider how easily he’s abandoned his 10th amendment principles in Virginia, on gay marriage, on abortion”
What I’d actually like to see is an argument as to why these kinds of issues should be state issues….not why the Constitution might currently say they ARE state issues, but why they should continue to remain so.
What is it about either of these things that follows the federalism argument that “different states have different needs”? Is it any more or less right to abort an innocent child in New York as opposed to Alabama? Is Gay Marriage any more or less harmful to the traditional family in California as opposed to Florida?
Oh come on. If Santorum were president, and a balanced budget passed by Congress included funding for sexual education that included tolerance education on homosexuality, he’d veto the budget.
Well, I’ll just say I think you’re wrong about Santorum and particularly wrong about Santorum’s relationships in Congress. John McCain doesn’t like him but John McCain has fewer admirers in Congress than almost any Senator you can think of, having alienated Republican leaders for the better part of a decade. Santorum was actually a fairly successful legislator. He understood the process. He was pragmatic. And exhibit A of that was the much discussed Specter endorsement. Now why did he endorse Specter? Because as a moderate chair of the judiciary committee Specter could get conservative nominees through. I can’t envision Perry being bright enough to understand that, nor principled enough to be uncomfortable with it if he did (as Santorum clearly was). Another exhibit is the Romney endorsement. Obviously didn’t like the guy. But calculated, pragmatically, that he had the best chance of stopping McCain. I think it’s possible that Santorum would be easily demonized as President but if he weren’t I think he’d be able to deal with Congress better than our last 2 Presidents.
Does Palin think it’s okay for Gingrich to keep giving Axelrod talking points that he’s using against the Republican party…I’m sorry, but she is an airhead.
I’m not a 10th Amendment guy on abortion or marriage. Those are issues of national concern.
I am a 10th Amendment guy on economic issues, including Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and I believe Social Security is unconstitutional at worst, and bad policy at best.
My problem MassCon, is that you seem more than happy to throw the social fabric out the window, come what may.
I support Romney, I have for five years, and will continue to do so. But in terms of which direction this party needs to head going forward, a dedicated, honest, socially conservative person like Santorum offers a far better path than either Gingrich or Perry.
Those that say she’s going to enter, Just how’s that?
Maybe a write-in in states that don’t allow it. Maybe states will reopen their cutoff dates to get on their ballot just for little old her? Maybe she’ll run 3rs party with Donnie?
MassCon (#20) Let’s look at the past couple of years, since 2010, when Tea Party became significant. Can you see Rum going along his own merry way without these people looking down his neck? I think Rum is more likely to listen to us limited government proponents than Perry would. Perry is too much of a corporation man to give heed to us. This is the reason why Rum is my distinct second choice.
Amazing how this site has gone from so anti-Romney to pro-Romney in 4 years. I was one of the few pro-Romney people blogging on this site 4 years ago. Now, I am one of the few Santorum supporters.
What also gets me is how people are not open to non-Romney points of view (and…how people where not open to pro-Romney opinions 4 years ago). In the end, we are conservatives, which should indicate we are open minded (unlike the liberals who only pretend to be)…
I actually believe Romney would have been a better general election candidate 4 years ago then he will most likely be this year…To be honest, I don’t like any of the candidates in this year’s environment. I still desperately want a Christie, Rubio, or Jindal… However, am willing to settle for Santorum….and Romney if required to after the end of the primaries…
Nobody really likes Santorum. He goes along to get along, but he doesn’t like anyone, and no one likes him either.
Why does he go along to get along?
He wants power. He is a power monger type. Just look at his attitude on pretty much any topic. He thinks he deserves everyone’s attention (his speeches are too long and boring but he thinks everyone should listen to him), he interrupts others during debates, rudely (no one is apparently more important than him), and even his policies suggest he’s a power monger.
Power mongers go along to get along, so they can get higher positions.
“What I’d actually like to see is an argument as to why these kinds of issues should be state issues….not why the Constitution might currently say they ARE state issues, but why they should continue to remain so.
What is it about either of these things that follows the federalism argument that “different states have different needs”? Is it any more or less right to abort an innocent child in New York as opposed to Alabama? Is Gay Marriage any more or less harmful to the traditional family in California as opposed to Florida?
I don’t think so.”
Oh, no argument there. I’m all for a human life amendment and, if I thought there was any way to fix civil marriage, I’d have no problem with federalizing it either. There’s a difference between the federal government usurping a privilege the constitution leaves to the states, and the federal government amending the constitution- in participation with the states- to federalize an issue. But the point is, Perry clearly had no notion of this. He just thought, “hey, I’m a states rights guy…right? I guess… I should want the states to deal with these issues”. And then someone whispered that he couldn’t say that and win a Republican nomination (which is wrong, but whatever) and he just recanted. My bad. States are lame. For now. But they’ll be cool later. And then may become lame again. Depends.
According to the “true conservatives” who consider anyone save the crazy radicals like themselves RINO’s or libs:
90′s liberal + 00′s/10′s conservative = Obama-lite, RINO extraordinaire
90′s conservative + 00′s/10′s liberal who pall’d up with Nancy Pelosi = True Conservative
We have no social fabric. What we’re doing isn’t working.
I want to introduce one of the below-the-radar philosophical debates of the Conservative movement I’ve noticed, and never really mentioned here much…
It’s like the chicken or the egg… Is our growth in the standard of living declining because of our poor social fabric, or is our social fabric poor because of our declining growth in standard of living?
I argue the latter.
We can federally engineer the social fabric all we want, but the fact is, our social fabric was better off in this country 200 years ago when the federal government was inconsequential in everyone’s lives.
Why might that be, hm?
Because people had a connection to their local community back then.
The irony is, the more our society becomes connected (through the government, through the media, through techonology), the less socially invested we all are, and the more we are like animals.
Give people local autonomy, local shame for wrongdoing, local praise for morality, and we restore the nation.
And this is why I’m a liberty-minded person who believes in local control, and less federal control on our lives.
42 – And what is funny is that if I was in SC and the final poll showed a close race between Romney and Gingrich, I would probably hold my nose and switch from Santorum to Gingrich.
Palin’s move was telegraphed by Todd earlier. Is it so surprising that someone only tangentially following the race, and not all that bright, would support Gingrich? She’s lost a lot of credibility over the course of the last year, and now to top it off by such a boneheaded move….it’s not out of the blue.
47 – There was very little…I do remember you…I also remember Granny…I think we were the three… Actually…there were more, but definitely less than 25%
Everytime I posted anything pro-Romney, it was shot down by 30 other McCain (and less so Huckabee) supporters…this year it is definitely over 50% Romney
Because churches were stronger, more influential, and the pressures from the media to do every immoral thing under the sun were not remotely what they are today.
===
“Give people local autonomy, local shame for wrongdoing, local praise for morality, and we restore the nation.”
Except you’re assuming that the local autonomy would lead to the other two things. IF there was any evidence of this, or the idea that giving people more freedom to act immorally would actually make them more moral, I would support you. But when we legalized abortion, it didn’t become more shameful – it became more acceptable, and now we lose a million babies a year. When we made divorce easier, divorce didn’t go down, nor did the divorced face greater stigma, once again, divorce skyrocketed. And when censorship of immorality on TV decreased, we didn’t see less drugs, less sex, and less violence, we saw more of all three. Often in combination.
Basically, I see plenty of examples where we’ve tried the government-butts-out method….but virtually no evidence that any of them have pushed our society back towards morality, back towards traditional social values, etc.
Excuse me if I’m not ready to apply the same approach to the last few stitches of the fabric.
I hope comment #44 got some of you thinking in a wider scope about things.
We have been on a path toward less social accountability because the people close to us in our lives are effectively dispensible.
Go out to the sticks in this country where everyone in a town works for the same company, there are no short drives to the city, and everyone attends the same church.
How many people in a town like that get abortions? How many are openly gay? How many cheat and lie and steal?
A lot less per capita than elsewhere. And this is because the people have some social (and even financial) investment in being an upstanding member of the community.
Now go to NYC.
Get an abortion? Get new friends and never tell them.
Do drugs? Ditch your friends and find new ones who use drugs.
Cheat on your wife and she leaves you? Go to a bar and meet skanks.
Anyone catching on here?
The social fabric is not a question of federal laws. It’s a question of the mentality of people lost in a big jumble of millions of irrelevant strangers in a confusing and interconnected environment.
“We can federally engineer the social fabric all we want, but the fact is, our social fabric was better off in this country 200 years ago when the federal government was inconsequential in everyone’s lives.
Why might that be, hm?
Because people had a connection to their local community back then.
The irony is, the more our society becomes connected (through the government, through the media, through techonology), the less socially invested we all are, and the more we are like animals.
Give people local autonomy, local shame for wrongdoing, local praise for morality, and we restore the nation.
And this is why I’m a liberty-minded person who believes in local control, and less federal control on our lives.”
I mostly agree. One thing I’d say though: we should be careful not to confuse national standards which are dictated/enforced/reinforce by Government, with all national standards. Our federal government isn’t well-suited to promoting a social ethos in part because our national myth is sort of that we don’t have a national myth. It doesn’t mean anything particular to be an American beyond that you have the freedom to be an American. We’ve tried on various attitudes- manifest destiny, progressivism, etc- but nothing, other than freedom, seemed to stick. So as the world has spread out and as our local ties have broken apart we haven’t had anything very coherent in reserve.
Plus, there’s the ongoing problem, which has afflicted all of the West, that we’ve forgotten the ideas that undergird our beliefs. I think the pro-life movement will eventually win the day. But I very much doubt the traditional marriage movement will. Because the folks who are opposed to gay marriage, by and large, have to resort to arguments which rely on premises a majority of the population not only doesn’t accept but doesn’t understand.
It’s pretty clear that the federal government’s unwillingness to promote a strong social fabric- whatever that might mean- has almost nothing to do with the breakdown of our culture.
The point is: Does Sarah Palin, Greta, Sean, Rush, Levin and a host of others exert any significant influence on the electorate? So far, not too much. Yeah, they have given a boost to each new ABR, but then the ABRs have fallen on their on weight despite the propping up by conservative media. And the Mitt Machine has marched on despite the continual slamming of Mitt by these folks.
Sarah should be commended for helping certain conservatives get elected in 2010–just as Mitt should be commended for doing the same.
However, at this time, does Sarah have any influence in American politics? IMO I don’t believe so.
It’s pretty clear that the federal government’s unwillingness to promote a strong social fabric- whatever that might mean- has almost nothing to do with the breakdown of our culture.
I’m glad someone else (besides a Ron Paul supporter) sees it too.
The idea that what laws are on the books in Washington DC has anything to do with how ignorant Jersey Shore types conduct their personal lives is beyond ridiculous.
Washington DC was founded to deliver mail, maintain interstate commerce, protect the country, and handle diplomacy, and that’s what it ought to do.
“True Conservatives” Telly and Sarah Palin are backing Newty.
Just what in blazes do “true conservatives” believe anyway, that the GOP nominee must be a loose cannon train wreak that spews its cargo of red meat all over the prairie (or tundra)?
#60: Kermit: Sarah is the VP of the ABR club. Rush is the president of it. Or, is it the other way around?
The fact that Mitt might take this thing any time soon has them frothing at the mouth. Their whole goal is to StopMitt–even if they have to endorse a basket case like Newt who should be nowhere near the oval office.
Sad, really, for both of them. The end of their careers, IMO. Virtually NO credibility left; their brains and integrity have left the building.
Both Mass Con and Matthew Kilburn have legitimate points. Although it would seem outrageously outrageous to re-instate, say, the Hays Code (a code sensoring films from about 1930 to 1970) plenty of Americans lived quite happily during that 40 year window without any notion that they were missing anything important. Plus, the films were terrific. Movies like The Awful Truth, which had to dance around sensitive subjects, are more interesting and clever than anything being made today. Is the mass availability of pornography really a blow for freedom (were 1950s men really so oppressed), or have we simply adopted a fairly peculiar and ahistorical notion of freedom?
At the same time, Mass Con is clearly right: small towns in America are better at inculcating values. Always have been. Read 19th century British novels and take note of their intimations about “town life” (city life). Hard to know how the federal government goes about fixing the fact that the average New Yorker doesn’t know his neighbor and if he did, he’d discover that they went to different churches (or non-churches), had different friends, different sexual preferences, different cultural markers, etc, etc.
As for censoring films and banning pornography, someone like me would say that if the government can censor films and ban pornography, isn’t that a slippery slope?
On the other hand, censorship had benefits, like during World War II. We had insatiable morale for the war effort, and it’s hard to imagine we would have if we saw pictures of dead soldiers, or soldiers torturing prisoners, or urinating on dead bodies, and such.
This is a tough subject for me to grapple with.
It’s pretty clear we would never be able to ban pornography or censor graphic or ugly films entirely anyway, especially with the internet. So it’s a worthless cause to pursue, although in a simpler time it seems to have worked well – albeit at the expense of liberty.q
On Mitt Rommney’s site, there are people chatting who are saying they know someone who is writing Rubio’s endorsement of Mitt that will be released after the SC primary.
I’m speechless, and embarrassed that I stuck up for Sarah soooo much. How can anyone of her stature come out and say, “don’t vote your concious, vote against Mitt Romney”. Pundits say these things, not former candidates for the second in command to the United States of America. Wow…good to know that elections are only about what Sarah wants them to be about….I am deeply, deeply embarrassed…sorry Ozzy, I don’t know if I can back you up on her anymore.
#71 I defended Sarah to the umpth degree against the liberal bit%ches who called her dumb. Sadly, Sarah has proven me a fool–and continues to do so more and more.
Why does Fox have her on? I guess because they have listeners as dumb as she is.
Quite frankly, the jobs lost I manufacturing have been replaced by robots are not coming back, regardless of how low the corporate tax rate is. It simply makes no sense to throw away the robots and hire 100 unskilled laborers.
“Still sharpeneen still” she is just so … folksy? Absolutely no “analysis” whatsoever. Platitudes, cliches, repeated phrases she heard in the past couple of days, word salad.
I’m sure Newt loves it, he needs any and all help at this point.
But for those who are those that would think and desire that this, too, means that she will take up the mantle for those who would be that reluctant candidate, that Washington or Ike and like those great presidents, too, and just freedom loving Patriots who are vetted and who don’t pal around with the terrorists also this is very important to remember:
Remember the SC Perry donor who defected recently and went over to Romney because his anti-free market rhetoric was like “fingernails on a chalkboard”????? Well, that’s what her voice now does to me. Yup! I agree w/ many here that she has lost credibility calling Newt a conservative alternative to Mitt. Newt says conservative things, uses conservative words, and espouses conservative ideas, but his record is something entirely NOT conservative. For queen sarah to tout Newt like he is this conservative messiah is, well, like fingernails on a chalkboard. It makes me sick that there are those that are salivating at the very thought she could enter this race. Think the party is divided now?
Why on earth do we care what someone who didn’t have the nerve to run herself thinks? All we heard last year was how Palin would destraoy the field. From that first hokey Mama Grizzly ad through her childish attempt to upstage Romney on his announcement day.
Better she stays home and works on that new bio of Paul Revere.
Next: Her entire segment was a summation of the previous 5 days Hannity/Rush shows, pushing the idea of keeping the arguement alive. No great stretch of effort or thought to regurgitate the script you are handed. If you want political analysis listen to Krauthammer or Hume. Palin is the Archie comics version of political thought.
“We need this vetting process to continue.”
You would vote for Newt for the purpose of continueing this fight instead of who you’d want?
You think we make a mistake by not vetting people last time around before the general?
This womans is consistently stupid.
Thank you for all those who thought great things about her in the begining, but have changed your mind and see what she really is! That is real encourgement that the electorate will eventually get things right.
“Why on earth do we care what someone who didn’t have the nerve to run herself thinks?” Then why do we care what you think? Do you have the nerve to run for anything?
86. True, McCain was slow to catch on. He was everyone’s second choice and stayed in the shadows for quite a while. In the end, he proved himself to be a very poor strategy. As his personality emerged, you were forced to embrace him or run hard.
And they said we were”jelous” of queen sarah when we women called her dumb. As my smart super stud husband said, I hate it when you are right.” Im rarely wrong, and pegged palin on day one.
I will agree with Palin’s one comment on there not being enough vetting last cycle. Liberal media gave McCain a free pass until he was the final nominee, knowing he’d be so easy to expose with all his gaffes.
They shot themselves in the foot however by giving Obama a free pass as well, all the way to the White House and what a joke his presidency has turned out to be.
If Mitt wasn’t here, Perry would be my next vote. And I really can’t stand the guy, but everybody else would be worse. Not that I think Perry, Newt, or Santorum have any shot at beating Obama should they get the nomination, anyway.
Santorum is a social crusader. And he’s intelligent and belligerent. Those would mean that we would further divide the lines of red and blue in this country. That’s what you get when you elect legislators to an executive post.
Perry is an idiot… so nothing would get done on his own. He did well in Texas by not doing anything. He’d sign whatever the GOP house and Senate sent him. Sure, there’d be cronies… but I think Santorum would be a much more expensive “Compassionate conservative.” Bush’s philosophy was “when people hurt, government needs to move.” That is what Santorum is also, and it gets very expensive very quickly.
McCain made Palin, Bristol, and Bristol’s Ex rich and famous, but Palin hates him for it.
In the meantime, Palin’s star has fallen with everyone except of few loony toons who think they are the “true conservatives” (and, not surprisingly, hate Romney for various reasons).
Then McCain goes and endorses Mitt.
That leaves Palin with no choice but to endorse an ABR candidate so she can keep scrapping in those nickles and dimes from her fanboys as long as possible.
Now as to why she choose Newt over Santorum?
Well, birds of a feather do flock together…
zeek Says:
January 18th, 2012 at 4:04 am
“We need this vetting process to continue.”
You would vote for Newt for the purpose of continueing this fight instead of who you’d want? You think we make a mistake by not vetting people last time around before the general?
This womans is consistently stupid.
Well, nobody vetted Palin, and that was a huge mistake…
Mitt Romney will NOT release his income tax returns now. Mitt Romney will NOT be the Republican party nominee if he he releases his income tax returns now. The Republican Party is being setup for a October surprise. Newt Gingrich needs to tie Mitt Romney’s failure to release NOW Mitt Romney’s tax returns to Mitt Romney’s Electability. Speak up NOW Mr. Speaker before it is too late.
It IS an interesting comparison: Sarah and Newt. And they do have a lot of common: Huge egos, the gift of gab, pretty nutty underneath it all, vindictive, the ability to pull the wool over (some) people’s eyes.
So, Sarah’s right: Vetting is a good thing. The trouble for her and Newt is we’ve been vetting all along and we’re on to both of them. Now…if we can help the last vestiges of their support see the light.
Palin is a media whore. nothing less, nothing more. She knows about as much as Rick Perry does about any type of substantive policy that does not involve alaska or texas.
are reversible when the drug is stopped. taking propecia once each day seems to be less difficult than applying minoxidil, but the prospect of taking a pill daily for years does not sit properly with some. there’s also the price, about…
wide range of possible treats is likely to be rewarding for homeowners in search of a comprehensive security plan. with protection against the common risks of fires, gas leaks, and floods, homeowners can feel more at ease about the safety and…
January 17th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
9. Wow, that’s exactly how I feel. Except I could never put it into words.
11. I haven’t gone that far, yet. For as idiotic and whiny as Santorum is, he’s still my second choice.
… And THAT is how bad this field is.
January 17th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Wow… I’m not sure how my comment ended up as #1. But it is clearly meant to be about 14-17.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Is that a good thing?
January 17th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
The beauty of Palin’s move tonite is she’s poised to “officially” enter either way, if Mitt wins in SC & FL, she’s in; if Newt succeeds in prolonging it, she’s ulimately in.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
The ironic part is the best example of a need to vet candidates is Sarah Palin herself. However with the candidates in the race now using liberal talking points to try to damage Romney I think it’s time to wrap this thing up.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Wow! Just when I think she can’t get any worse. Good grief.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Sarah Palin is an idiot.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
And I say that as someone who once thought she’d make a great VP. If people don’t know what Romney’s beliefs and ideas are, they’re idiots, too.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Just lost a lot of respect for her. I guess she would also sit on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to make an ad on global warming.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
“The beauty of Palin’s move tonite is she’s poised to “officially” enter either way, if Mitt wins in SC & FL, she’s in; if Newt succeeds in prolonging it, she’s ulimately in.”
Pull your head out of your hindparts and buzz off. Romney’s support level, filing deadlines, the momentum from impending wins Romney is likely to achieve, the money race, and last but not least – Palin’s own approval rating (or lack there of) essentially preclude her from entering the race.
The only people I can really see switching over because of this would be those who were backing Santorum as the Conservative underdog BECAUSE they thought he had the best shot to beat Mitt.
Its probably a pretty small group.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
6. I kinda feel the same way.
I think Palin’s transformed and lost even more credibility than she had to begin with. As extremists of the party rallied to her, she lost perspective and conformed to her constituency rather than the other way around.
I think the same thing happened to Beck.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
One thing certain from the COMPLETE Hannity interview, the real contest continues, Palin v.Romney!!!
January 17th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Anyone here remember how I hammered Rick Perry for several months nonstop last year for being a corrupt, big-spending, phony cowboy, dumbass?
Well guess what…
He’s now my second choice.
… And THAT is how bad this field is.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Terrific. Palin should drive droves of folks away from Newt.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Mattehew K,
she’s already in the race, albeit “unconventionlly”
January 17th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
My girl!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltRwmgYEUr8
January 17th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
11. MassCon, You’d take Perry over Santorum? That surprises me. There’s a lot I don’t like about Rum, but I still think he’d be better than Perry. Rum, I think, is at least competent and principled.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Dumbest thing I have ever heard. Extending the race just for the sake of extending the race? If she doesn’t even have the guts (or the brain) to make a substantive argument in favor of voting for Newt, what good is she doing? Luckily, I imagine anyone smart enough to vote for Mitt won’t be paying any attention to her nonsense.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
13 – Nah … Santorum is my #2. He is a distant #2, but he wouldn’t be any worse than George W. Bush. Perry and Newt would be far worse. They aren’t electable though so I don’t think we would ever have to worry about them in the White House.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
17
Yes. I am more of a liberty-oriented Conservative and a strong believer in the power of interstate competition via the 10th Amendment.
Santorum is a top-down type. He was a legislator with no executive experience, no leadership abilities, and he was a go-along-to-get-along type. I hate the man personally, as well. He’s an angry person with a vindictive streak. He could never lead Washington toward any consensus because he’s so abrasive and reactionary.
Perry has major problems, but at least he could conceivably lead an initiative to a successful conclusion in Washington.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Mass Con,
Come on, Santorum is clearly, clearly better than Perry. He avoided the Bain attacks, is knowledgeable, argues for pragmatism (note his taking Newt to task for his Social Security fantasy) despite having firm principles, and has a coherent philosophy which doesn’t appear to have been developed while drinking one night at a hunting range. If he wasn’t such a grump, and if he hadn’t lost by 18 points 6 years ago, I’d probably be supporting him right now. What is it about Perry that finally sold you? His winning smile? His propensity to sue states for having their own voting laws from his lofty perch as a 10th amendment champion? Inquiring minds want to know.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
20. Well, let’s just hope and pray it doesn’t come to that. Let’s just elect Mitt and not worry about what Perry or Santorum would do in the White House.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
21
Perry has not sold me anything. The man is Bush with less honor.
The others are just worse.
I can’t stand Santorum, personally. If I had to see the man’s face on TV for 4 years, I’d cancel my cable. Plus, he has so many bad relationships in Congress, I just can’t see how he’d lead an initiative.
With Perry, we’d have an incompetent dunce figurehead in the White House who would sign whatever the Republicans in Congress threw at him.
With Santorum, we’d have a NeoCon power monger in the White House who would be the subject of constant media trashing whose political capital would be practically gone within weeks of being inaugurated. He would fight too hard for his belief systems, and blow everything up if he didn’t get what he wanted in the bills.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Mass con,
Here’s the truth: everybody who’s run for President in the last 50 years, except maybe Ron Paul, is a top-down type. Or at least likely to become a top-down type in office. FDR started running in 1932 on states rights and the heavy-hand of the federal government. He argued that Hoover was doing too much. But no one voluntarily surrenders power. Obama, the great Iraq skeptic, the great opponent of detention, and legislator is now off assassinating American citizens, starting new wars, declaring Congress in recess when it’s not, etc, etc. We have institutional checks in place precisely because it makes no sense to expect men to check themselves. And if you prefer Perry because he’s given lip-service to the 10th amendment I suggest you A.) Consider his incentives as a Governor versus Santorum’s incentives as a Senator (hint: one was a state officer, the other a federal) and B.) Consider how easily he’s abandoned his 10th amendment principles in Virginia, on gay marriage, on abortion- essentially whenever it suited him to do so.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
“He would fight too hard for his belief systems”
hmmmm……….
January 17th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
I think Palin is just messin’ with Nikki Haley.
Cat fight!
January 17th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
man, she’s annoying…
January 17th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
HAHAHA!
I knew I’d stir up the hornets nest!
Sorry guys, I just really dislike Santorum’s personality type. Really badly.
Perry is a pathetic piece of garbage as well.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
“Consider how easily he’s abandoned his 10th amendment principles in Virginia, on gay marriage, on abortion”
What I’d actually like to see is an argument as to why these kinds of issues should be state issues….not why the Constitution might currently say they ARE state issues, but why they should continue to remain so.
What is it about either of these things that follows the federalism argument that “different states have different needs”? Is it any more or less right to abort an innocent child in New York as opposed to Alabama? Is Gay Marriage any more or less harmful to the traditional family in California as opposed to Florida?
I don’t think so.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
25
Oh come on. If Santorum were president, and a balanced budget passed by Congress included funding for sexual education that included tolerance education on homosexuality, he’d veto the budget.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Well, I’ll just say I think you’re wrong about Santorum and particularly wrong about Santorum’s relationships in Congress. John McCain doesn’t like him but John McCain has fewer admirers in Congress than almost any Senator you can think of, having alienated Republican leaders for the better part of a decade. Santorum was actually a fairly successful legislator. He understood the process. He was pragmatic. And exhibit A of that was the much discussed Specter endorsement. Now why did he endorse Specter? Because as a moderate chair of the judiciary committee Specter could get conservative nominees through. I can’t envision Perry being bright enough to understand that, nor principled enough to be uncomfortable with it if he did (as Santorum clearly was). Another exhibit is the Romney endorsement. Obviously didn’t like the guy. But calculated, pragmatically, that he had the best chance of stopping McCain. I think it’s possible that Santorum would be easily demonized as President but if he weren’t I think he’d be able to deal with Congress better than our last 2 Presidents.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Does Palin think it’s okay for Gingrich to keep giving Axelrod talking points that he’s using against the Republican party…I’m sorry, but she is an airhead.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
I’m not a 10th Amendment guy on abortion or marriage. Those are issues of national concern.
I am a 10th Amendment guy on economic issues, including Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and I believe Social Security is unconstitutional at worst, and bad policy at best.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
My problem MassCon, is that you seem more than happy to throw the social fabric out the window, come what may.
I support Romney, I have for five years, and will continue to do so. But in terms of which direction this party needs to head going forward, a dedicated, honest, socially conservative person like Santorum offers a far better path than either Gingrich or Perry.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Mass Con has demonstrated some questionable thinking tonight on many issues. He may be part French.
Do not take him too seriously.
if you know what I mean
January 17th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Palin is a bigger blowhard than Gingrich.
Those that say she’s going to enter, Just how’s that?
Maybe a write-in in states that don’t allow it. Maybe states will reopen their cutoff dates to get on their ballot just for little old her? Maybe she’ll run 3rs party with Donnie?
Come on…She’s OLD NEWS and going nowhere.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
MassCon (#20) Let’s look at the past couple of years, since 2010, when Tea Party became significant. Can you see Rum going along his own merry way without these people looking down his neck? I think Rum is more likely to listen to us limited government proponents than Perry would. Perry is too much of a corporation man to give heed to us. This is the reason why Rum is my distinct second choice.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Amazing how this site has gone from so anti-Romney to pro-Romney in 4 years. I was one of the few pro-Romney people blogging on this site 4 years ago. Now, I am one of the few Santorum supporters.
What also gets me is how people are not open to non-Romney points of view (and…how people where not open to pro-Romney opinions 4 years ago). In the end, we are conservatives, which should indicate we are open minded (unlike the liberals who only pretend to be)…
I actually believe Romney would have been a better general election candidate 4 years ago then he will most likely be this year…To be honest, I don’t like any of the candidates in this year’s environment. I still desperately want a Christie, Rubio, or Jindal… However, am willing to settle for Santorum….and Romney if required to after the end of the primaries…
January 17th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
31
Nobody really likes Santorum. He goes along to get along, but he doesn’t like anyone, and no one likes him either.
Why does he go along to get along?
He wants power. He is a power monger type. Just look at his attitude on pretty much any topic. He thinks he deserves everyone’s attention (his speeches are too long and boring but he thinks everyone should listen to him), he interrupts others during debates, rudely (no one is apparently more important than him), and even his policies suggest he’s a power monger.
Power mongers go along to get along, so they can get higher positions.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Matthew,
“What I’d actually like to see is an argument as to why these kinds of issues should be state issues….not why the Constitution might currently say they ARE state issues, but why they should continue to remain so.
What is it about either of these things that follows the federalism argument that “different states have different needs”? Is it any more or less right to abort an innocent child in New York as opposed to Alabama? Is Gay Marriage any more or less harmful to the traditional family in California as opposed to Florida?
I don’t think so.”
Oh, no argument there. I’m all for a human life amendment and, if I thought there was any way to fix civil marriage, I’d have no problem with federalizing it either. There’s a difference between the federal government usurping a privilege the constitution leaves to the states, and the federal government amending the constitution- in participation with the states- to federalize an issue. But the point is, Perry clearly had no notion of this. He just thought, “hey, I’m a states rights guy…right? I guess… I should want the states to deal with these issues”. And then someone whispered that he couldn’t say that and win a Republican nomination (which is wrong, but whatever) and he just recanted. My bad. States are lame. For now. But they’ll be cool later. And then may become lame again. Depends.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
13. MC
I laughed so hard I had tears. Priceless.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
38. Good to see you posting Kid.
We need some Santorum supporters on here for a little balance.
of course,
A vote for Rick is a vote for Mitt.
Go figure
January 17th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
According to the “true conservatives” who consider anyone save the crazy radicals like themselves RINO’s or libs:
90′s liberal + 00′s/10′s conservative = Obama-lite, RINO extraordinaire
90′s conservative + 00′s/10′s liberal who pall’d up with Nancy Pelosi = True Conservative
What a bunch of idiots.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
34
We have no social fabric. What we’re doing isn’t working.
I want to introduce one of the below-the-radar philosophical debates of the Conservative movement I’ve noticed, and never really mentioned here much…
It’s like the chicken or the egg… Is our growth in the standard of living declining because of our poor social fabric, or is our social fabric poor because of our declining growth in standard of living?
I argue the latter.
We can federally engineer the social fabric all we want, but the fact is, our social fabric was better off in this country 200 years ago when the federal government was inconsequential in everyone’s lives.
Why might that be, hm?
Because people had a connection to their local community back then.
The irony is, the more our society becomes connected (through the government, through the media, through techonology), the less socially invested we all are, and the more we are like animals.
Give people local autonomy, local shame for wrongdoing, local praise for morality, and we restore the nation.
And this is why I’m a liberty-minded person who believes in local control, and less federal control on our lives.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
42 – And what is funny is that if I was in SC and the final poll showed a close race between Romney and Gingrich, I would probably hold my nose and switch from Santorum to Gingrich.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Palin’s move was telegraphed by Todd earlier. Is it so surprising that someone only tangentially following the race, and not all that bright, would support Gingrich? She’s lost a lot of credibility over the course of the last year, and now to top it off by such a boneheaded move….it’s not out of the blue.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Kid,
I’ve been commenting here for 5 years, and there was considerable Romney sentiment here 5 and 4 years ago. But, I agree that there’s more now.
I haven’t changed.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
13. MC
Let me help you feel better. It could possibly be a whole lot worse…you could have Newt as your first choice.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
47 – There was very little…I do remember you…I also remember Granny…I think we were the three…
Actually…there were more, but definitely less than 25%
Everytime I posted anything pro-Romney, it was shot down by 30 other McCain (and less so Huckabee) supporters…this year it is definitely over 50% Romney
January 17th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Kid, I was there. Under the name of Shawnie.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
And I remember Metro, oh boy do I remember Metro.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
She thinks she’s hot….and she’s not…
January 17th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
“Why might that be, hm?”
Because churches were stronger, more influential, and the pressures from the media to do every immoral thing under the sun were not remotely what they are today.
===
“Give people local autonomy, local shame for wrongdoing, local praise for morality, and we restore the nation.”
Except you’re assuming that the local autonomy would lead to the other two things. IF there was any evidence of this, or the idea that giving people more freedom to act immorally would actually make them more moral, I would support you. But when we legalized abortion, it didn’t become more shameful – it became more acceptable, and now we lose a million babies a year. When we made divorce easier, divorce didn’t go down, nor did the divorced face greater stigma, once again, divorce skyrocketed. And when censorship of immorality on TV decreased, we didn’t see less drugs, less sex, and less violence, we saw more of all three. Often in combination.
Basically, I see plenty of examples where we’ve tried the government-butts-out method….but virtually no evidence that any of them have pushed our society back towards morality, back towards traditional social values, etc.
Excuse me if I’m not ready to apply the same approach to the last few stitches of the fabric.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
51- Don’t remind me about Metro…
January 17th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
No rational thinker cares what SP would do if she lived in SC. We don’t even care what she does living in Alaska.
Give em hell Mitt!
January 17th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
I hope comment #44 got some of you thinking in a wider scope about things.
We have been on a path toward less social accountability because the people close to us in our lives are effectively dispensible.
Go out to the sticks in this country where everyone in a town works for the same company, there are no short drives to the city, and everyone attends the same church.
How many people in a town like that get abortions? How many are openly gay? How many cheat and lie and steal?
A lot less per capita than elsewhere. And this is because the people have some social (and even financial) investment in being an upstanding member of the community.
Now go to NYC.
Get an abortion? Get new friends and never tell them.
Do drugs? Ditch your friends and find new ones who use drugs.
Cheat on your wife and she leaves you? Go to a bar and meet skanks.
Anyone catching on here?
The social fabric is not a question of federal laws. It’s a question of the mentality of people lost in a big jumble of millions of irrelevant strangers in a confusing and interconnected environment.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
55 – I guess many of us conservatives are not rational…I thought I was, but Nostradamus is always right
January 17th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Kilburn,
As far as abortions go, they are murder, and they should be illegal in all cases.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Mass Con,
“We can federally engineer the social fabric all we want, but the fact is, our social fabric was better off in this country 200 years ago when the federal government was inconsequential in everyone’s lives.
Why might that be, hm?
Because people had a connection to their local community back then.
The irony is, the more our society becomes connected (through the government, through the media, through techonology), the less socially invested we all are, and the more we are like animals.
Give people local autonomy, local shame for wrongdoing, local praise for morality, and we restore the nation.
And this is why I’m a liberty-minded person who believes in local control, and less federal control on our lives.”
I mostly agree. One thing I’d say though: we should be careful not to confuse national standards which are dictated/enforced/reinforce by Government, with all national standards. Our federal government isn’t well-suited to promoting a social ethos in part because our national myth is sort of that we don’t have a national myth. It doesn’t mean anything particular to be an American beyond that you have the freedom to be an American. We’ve tried on various attitudes- manifest destiny, progressivism, etc- but nothing, other than freedom, seemed to stick. So as the world has spread out and as our local ties have broken apart we haven’t had anything very coherent in reserve.
Plus, there’s the ongoing problem, which has afflicted all of the West, that we’ve forgotten the ideas that undergird our beliefs. I think the pro-life movement will eventually win the day. But I very much doubt the traditional marriage movement will. Because the folks who are opposed to gay marriage, by and large, have to resort to arguments which rely on premises a majority of the population not only doesn’t accept but doesn’t understand.
It’s pretty clear that the federal government’s unwillingness to promote a strong social fabric- whatever that might mean- has almost nothing to do with the breakdown of our culture.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Of COURSE she’d vote for Newt! They’re both ego maniacs!!!
January 17th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
The point is: Does Sarah Palin, Greta, Sean, Rush, Levin and a host of others exert any significant influence on the electorate? So far, not too much. Yeah, they have given a boost to each new ABR, but then the ABRs have fallen on their on weight despite the propping up by conservative media. And the Mitt Machine has marched on despite the continual slamming of Mitt by these folks.
Sarah should be commended for helping certain conservatives get elected in 2010–just as Mitt should be commended for doing the same.
However, at this time, does Sarah have any influence in American politics? IMO I don’t believe so.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
59
I’m glad someone else (besides a Ron Paul supporter) sees it too.
The idea that what laws are on the books in Washington DC has anything to do with how ignorant Jersey Shore types conduct their personal lives is beyond ridiculous.
Washington DC was founded to deliver mail, maintain interstate commerce, protect the country, and handle diplomacy, and that’s what it ought to do.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
This just kills me!
“True Conservatives” Telly and Sarah Palin are backing Newty.
Just what in blazes do “true conservatives” believe anyway, that the GOP nominee must be a loose cannon train wreak that spews its cargo of red meat all over the prairie (or tundra)?
Brawhahahaha…
January 17th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
#60: Kermit: Sarah is the VP of the ABR club. Rush is the president of it. Or, is it the other way around?
The fact that Mitt might take this thing any time soon has them frothing at the mouth. Their whole goal is to StopMitt–even if they have to endorse a basket case like Newt who should be nowhere near the oval office.
Sad, really, for both of them. The end of their careers, IMO. Virtually NO credibility left; their brains and integrity have left the building.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Sarah just gave me another reason not to vote for Newt. If she supports him, there must be something wrong with him.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Both Mass Con and Matthew Kilburn have legitimate points. Although it would seem outrageously outrageous to re-instate, say, the Hays Code (a code sensoring films from about 1930 to 1970) plenty of Americans lived quite happily during that 40 year window without any notion that they were missing anything important. Plus, the films were terrific. Movies like The Awful Truth, which had to dance around sensitive subjects, are more interesting and clever than anything being made today. Is the mass availability of pornography really a blow for freedom (were 1950s men really so oppressed), or have we simply adopted a fairly peculiar and ahistorical notion of freedom?
At the same time, Mass Con is clearly right: small towns in America are better at inculcating values. Always have been. Read 19th century British novels and take note of their intimations about “town life” (city life). Hard to know how the federal government goes about fixing the fact that the average New Yorker doesn’t know his neighbor and if he did, he’d discover that they went to different churches (or non-churches), had different friends, different sexual preferences, different cultural markers, etc, etc.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Paul would be my second choice.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
65
As for censoring films and banning pornography, someone like me would say that if the government can censor films and ban pornography, isn’t that a slippery slope?
On the other hand, censorship had benefits, like during World War II. We had insatiable morale for the war effort, and it’s hard to imagine we would have if we saw pictures of dead soldiers, or soldiers torturing prisoners, or urinating on dead bodies, and such.
This is a tough subject for me to grapple with.
It’s pretty clear we would never be able to ban pornography or censor graphic or ugly films entirely anyway, especially with the internet. So it’s a worthless cause to pursue, although in a simpler time it seems to have worked well – albeit at the expense of liberty.q
January 17th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
On Mitt Rommney’s site, there are people chatting who are saying they know someone who is writing Rubio’s endorsement of Mitt that will be released after the SC primary.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Newt said he’d like Palin to be his VP. No wonder she asked her husband to endorse Newt. Sad, very sad. Let me unconfuse her. Vote for Mitt.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
They are all corrupt except Mitt and Ron Paul.
January 17th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Dumber than a box of rocks!
Go away Sarah Palin.
January 17th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I’m speechless, and embarrassed that I stuck up for Sarah soooo much. How can anyone of her stature come out and say, “don’t vote your concious, vote against Mitt Romney”. Pundits say these things, not former candidates for the second in command to the United States of America. Wow…good to know that elections are only about what Sarah wants them to be about….I am deeply, deeply embarrassed…sorry Ozzy, I don’t know if I can back you up on her anymore.
January 17th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
#71 I defended Sarah to the umpth degree against the liberal bit%ches who called her dumb. Sadly, Sarah has proven me a fool–and continues to do so more and more.
Why does Fox have her on? I guess because they have listeners as dumb as she is.
January 17th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
I know this is irrelevant and petty, but seriously, what in the world is up with her hair?
January 17th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Excellent article that shows how much of a gimmick/pander Santorum’s 0% corporate tax for manufacturers are.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-america/8844/1/
Quite frankly, the jobs lost I manufacturing have been replaced by robots are not coming back, regardless of how low the corporate tax rate is. It simply makes no sense to throw away the robots and hire 100 unskilled laborers.
January 17th, 2012 at 11:36 pm
75
Robots will soon rule us. They will enslave hundreds of unskilled workers to do their work for them, mark my words!
January 17th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
#76 As long as the robots feed their workers and we can get them off the welfare rolls, I’m good.
January 18th, 2012 at 12:37 am
I voted for McCain, but I have a hard time forgiving him for unleashing Sarah Palin on national politics. Her metaphors are beyond tired.
January 18th, 2012 at 1:04 am
“Still sharpeneen still” she is just so … folksy? Absolutely no “analysis” whatsoever. Platitudes, cliches, repeated phrases she heard in the past couple of days, word salad.
I’m sure Newt loves it, he needs any and all help at this point.
But for those who are those that would think and desire that this, too, means that she will take up the mantle for those who would be that reluctant candidate, that Washington or Ike and like those great presidents, too, and just freedom loving Patriots who are vetted and who don’t pal around with the terrorists also this is very important to remember:
She is not running, never was, never will.
January 18th, 2012 at 1:39 am
Remember the SC Perry donor who defected recently and went over to Romney because his anti-free market rhetoric was like “fingernails on a chalkboard”????? Well, that’s what her voice now does to me. Yup! I agree w/ many here that she has lost credibility calling Newt a conservative alternative to Mitt. Newt says conservative things, uses conservative words, and espouses conservative ideas, but his record is something entirely NOT conservative. For queen sarah to tout Newt like he is this conservative messiah is, well, like fingernails on a chalkboard. It makes me sick that there are those that are salivating at the very thought she could enter this race. Think the party is divided now?
January 18th, 2012 at 2:20 am
75, 77
Is she not a brunette FemBot?
January 18th, 2012 at 2:46 am
Sarah Palin needs to learn that whenever someone asks her about politics, she should just smile and say, “I like furry little kittens.”
January 18th, 2012 at 3:16 am
Why on earth do we care what someone who didn’t have the nerve to run herself thinks? All we heard last year was how Palin would destraoy the field. From that first hokey Mama Grizzly ad through her childish attempt to upstage Romney on his announcement day.
Better she stays home and works on that new bio of Paul Revere.
Next: Her entire segment was a summation of the previous 5 days Hannity/Rush shows, pushing the idea of keeping the arguement alive. No great stretch of effort or thought to regurgitate the script you are handed. If you want political analysis listen to Krauthammer or Hume. Palin is the Archie comics version of political thought.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:04 am
“We need this vetting process to continue.”
You would vote for Newt for the purpose of continueing this fight instead of who you’d want?
You think we make a mistake by not vetting people last time around before the general?
This womans is consistently stupid.
Thank you for all those who thought great things about her in the begining, but have changed your mind and see what she really is! That is real encourgement that the electorate will eventually get things right.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:58 am
C/Kid,
Better get your memory checked.
I’ve been here since early 2007. At that time there was barely ANY McCain supporters.
January 18th, 2012 at 6:48 am
“Why on earth do we care what someone who didn’t have the nerve to run herself thinks?” Then why do we care what you think? Do you have the nerve to run for anything?
January 18th, 2012 at 7:01 am
86. True, McCain was slow to catch on. He was everyone’s second choice and stayed in the shadows for quite a while. In the end, he proved himself to be a very poor strategy. As his personality emerged, you were forced to embrace him or run hard.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:12 am
And they said we were”jelous” of queen sarah when we women called her dumb. As my smart super stud husband said, I hate it when you are right.” Im rarely wrong, and pegged palin on day one.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:15 am
Another reason to vote for Mitt! Raaarrrrrhhh!
January 18th, 2012 at 7:20 am
I will agree with Palin’s one comment on there not being enough vetting last cycle. Liberal media gave McCain a free pass until he was the final nominee, knowing he’d be so easy to expose with all his gaffes.
They shot themselves in the foot however by giving Obama a free pass as well, all the way to the White House and what a joke his presidency has turned out to be.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:25 am
23
I agree.
If Mitt wasn’t here, Perry would be my next vote. And I really can’t stand the guy, but everybody else would be worse. Not that I think Perry, Newt, or Santorum have any shot at beating Obama should they get the nomination, anyway.
Santorum is a social crusader. And he’s intelligent and belligerent. Those would mean that we would further divide the lines of red and blue in this country. That’s what you get when you elect legislators to an executive post.
Perry is an idiot… so nothing would get done on his own. He did well in Texas by not doing anything. He’d sign whatever the GOP house and Senate sent him. Sure, there’d be cronies… but I think Santorum would be a much more expensive “Compassionate conservative.” Bush’s philosophy was “when people hurt, government needs to move.” That is what Santorum is also, and it gets very expensive very quickly.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:28 am
87
What a dumb comment. Doug, or anyone else, is not here to tell others how to think. Palin is.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:44 am
87. Apparently, Palin herself does not have the nerve to run for anything either!
January 18th, 2012 at 8:07 am
RINO!
January 18th, 2012 at 8:08 am
Rob, the hair is crazy hair, she needs it to match her crazy eyes.
January 18th, 2012 at 8:12 am
96. Some of her immediate family members are opening a beauty salon (real story). So, maybe they’ve been practicing?
January 18th, 2012 at 8:24 am
McCain made Palin, Bristol, and Bristol’s Ex rich and famous, but Palin hates him for it.
In the meantime, Palin’s star has fallen with everyone except of few loony toons who think they are the “true conservatives” (and, not surprisingly, hate Romney for various reasons).
Then McCain goes and endorses Mitt.
That leaves Palin with no choice but to endorse an ABR candidate so she can keep scrapping in those nickles and dimes from her fanboys as long as possible.
Now as to why she choose Newt over Santorum?
Well, birds of a feather do flock together…
January 18th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Well, nobody vetted Palin, and that was a huge mistake…
January 18th, 2012 at 8:49 am
Mitt Romney will NOT release his income tax returns now. Mitt Romney will NOT be the Republican party nominee if he he releases his income tax returns now. The Republican Party is being setup for a October surprise. Newt Gingrich needs to tie Mitt Romney’s failure to release NOW Mitt Romney’s tax returns to Mitt Romney’s Electability. Speak up NOW Mr. Speaker before it is too late.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35ob97/
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35md07/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-aeD1HXjaY
January 18th, 2012 at 8:59 am
It IS an interesting comparison: Sarah and Newt. And they do have a lot of common: Huge egos, the gift of gab, pretty nutty underneath it all, vindictive, the ability to pull the wool over (some) people’s eyes.
So, Sarah’s right: Vetting is a good thing. The trouble for her and Newt is we’ve been vetting all along and we’re on to both of them. Now…if we can help the last vestiges of their support see the light.
January 18th, 2012 at 10:42 am
I’d really like to see Romney beat Gingrich in South Carolina, if just for the simple reason I’d like to blow a hole in Palin’s credibility.
January 18th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Palin is a media whore. nothing less, nothing more. She knows about as much as Rick Perry does about any type of substantive policy that does not involve alaska or texas.
January 29th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
than observed inside the general population and…
are reversible when the drug is stopped. taking propecia once each day seems to be less difficult than applying minoxidil, but the prospect of taking a pill daily for years does not sit properly with some. there’s also the price, about…
February 7th, 2012 at 9:50 am
monitoring company that offers alerts for a…
wide range of possible treats is likely to be rewarding for homeowners in search of a comprehensive security plan. with protection against the common risks of fires, gas leaks, and floods, homeowners can feel more at ease about the safety and…