Don’t you think his destruction of the economy and huge increase in deficits is a black mark? His removal of regulators and environmental regulation was horrible. Bush was special bad. He took a thriving country with no deficits and low unemployment and thrust us into policies that bankrupted us. He is as bad as it gets. Two wars based on lies also puts him into the worst class.
I’d like to hear the logic behind this myself. Outside of her crazy base, she’s not very popular.
It’s OK if you’re a Republican. If it’s not OK, then you’re not a TRUE [del]scotsman[/del] Republican. :rolleyes:
Plus that whole “US electorate collectively has the attention span of a junkie ferret with ADD” thing. Plus the Republican propaganda machine is in full swing.
The R team let the Gulf Coast states drown, but people there still vote R. The R team won’t say it, but they’d have let all major US automakers go under. But people in auto and steel manufacturing areas like Michigan, Ohio and western PA will still vote R, in droves. I’ll never understand people.
Palin won’t have any more of a GOP machine behind her than she and John McCain did in 2008.
If somehow Palin gets nominated, Obama will be re-elected with more electoral votes than he got in 2008, and I’ll put money on it.
It’s very simple, though probably incomprehensible to the liberal mind: the people in those areas simply don’t view it as the government’s job to take care of them in the first place. Thus they don’t feel “let down” when it doesn’t.
I would understand their point if this were actually true.
I think that at some point in this thread I qualified the question by eliminating the “IF” she got the nomination; from that point on, the question was could Palin beat Obama. And you better bet that IF she got that nomination the full weight of the Republican party would be behind her. But first, she does have to get the nomination but I don’t regard that as a remote possibility.
This is just the kind of propaganda I’m talking about. When the Rs let several states drown, made ineffective efforts to protect people from the coming storm, made at best inadequate efforts to keep people alive in the aftermath, and made minimal effort to repair or replace the region’s infrastructure (which the storm destroyed utterly), then the people left resource-less in the devastation are told they must be “self reliant”. This is beyond :rolleyes: Katrina is an example of government at every level failing in every conceivable way, doing next to nothing to ameliorate that failure, and not even considering how to improve its response to the next identical crisis.
The only government agency that performed as it should have during Katrina was the US Coast Guard.
If I’m a fire fighter and I sit passively while your house burns down next to me because I’m busy fishing, would you listen when I say afterward “you need to pull your self up by your bootstraps”? Would you let me keep my job? I’d consider myself lucky if you only kicked my gonads into my solar plexus as opposed to all the way up to my skull.
But when some billionaire complains that he has to pay taxes, his rates are lowered. I suppose these billionaires are sleeping on mattresses made of money because they ain’t hiring people.
And when a US state awash in oil money wants to get Uncle Sugar to build a bridge to a town that is nearly depopulated, that state gets the money. Until it’s too embarrassing to admit. Then they were for the money until they were against it. Again, beyond :rolleyes:
The R team started the automaker bailouts. Of course as a traditional R myself, I was completely against this (as with all of the financial bailouts). Capitalism is a good system if you let it work, but to let it work, sometimes people have to lose. (Oh, and I’m from Michigan and work in the auto industry.) Michigan is a blue state, by the way.
Where was the state government this whole time? I live in Michigan, and I know that I need a winter coat, lest I freeze to death. You’d think that the government of Louisiana would have taken some precautions?
That’s not at all the same. You’re employed at a local level, where your local planners realize that there’s a potential for fire, and decide to fund and operate a fire department. Do you really want your department federalized? (I’m assuming you don’t work on a military base or similar.)
Quick nitpick. He didn’t use any public money. Not currupt, just a high class hornball.
This story concerning a recent poll in on Google News at the moment. Palin is in the top four picks for the GOP nomination at present, although she doesn’t have a clear lead.
[URL=“Google”]
Sorry about my inability to create a link; it seems to be a permanent senior moment for me.
LouisB: to create a link, just click that little icon with the globe and a chain link on it, and paste in the url. Then click OK. It makes the link for you.
No, I don’t think she could. And I certainly hope she won’t. The first female President needs to be someone serious. Otherwise, if she wins and when she inevitably fucks it up (can I quit? it’s been 2 years and I’m tired of being President), everyone will look back at the first female President and decide not to vote for the next female who runs, because their perception of a female POTUS would be based on Palin’s stereotype.
Balthisar, I did say government failed at every level during and after Katrina. That doesn’t absolve the feds of their responsibility.
Getting back to Palin, how is she likely to be in a crisis?
That thought also occured to me 
I don’t disagree with your conclusion but will this hold true IF Obama doesn’t win? In other words, will the next Black candidate be defeated because people’s opinion will be influenced because of the public’s perception of Obama?
I’ve read that there is a (real?) possibility that Obama will face challenges during the Democrat’s primary and will fail to secure the nomination; I doubt that will happen, but anything’s possible.
Eyesight alone doesn’t make you a good airline pilot, but I’m still not getting on a 777 flown by Stevie Wonder.
There is zero possibility, absent a credible criminal case or a total economic meltdown, that anyone will mount a serious primary challenge to Obama. Anyone saying that is a political reporter trying to drum up “drama” and make their job seem more interesting.
1 - No one will challenge Obama from the right of the party. There is no room to Obama’s right in the national Democratic party.
2 - no one will challenge him from the “establishment.” No one with a primary loyalty to the institution of the party will want to weaken a sitting president with a primary challenge.
3 - there’s in theory plenty of room to challenge him from the left; someone with a protectionist, anti-war, pro-single-payer health care, pro-civil-liberties (or pick two) platform could in theory run an insurgent campaign that would make a lot of noise. But in order to run a successful campaign from the left, you need black people to vote for you; good luck with that.
Hillary Clinton (who is the only potential primary challenger I’ve actually seen named) can’t run credibly to Obama’s left on anything but maybe trade issues; and if she goes ahead and runs anyway, all of her best friends forever in the Democratic establishment will drop her like a hot potato. She’s smart enough to know that (and then some), so there’s no chance.
The bailouts were necessary and saved millions of jibs. The idea of free trade is flawed. It does not exist. It is like communism, it has never been tried. As soon as it starts those running it corrupt it to their advantage. Communist bosses lived in castles and drove limos. Our plutocrats have twisted our system into one that feeds money and power to them.
If you want capitalism, you need a lot of regulation to make sure it stays that way. We don’t have it. We have oligarchy. We have a growing plutocracy. We never have had free trade and capitalism.
Michigan is blue in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area. Get outside and it is as red as the south. People who live off the government in the winter, vote republican . They are bigoted and that afraid of the blacks.
I think we’ve gotten past the point where people see women candidates as primarily being defined by their gender. I think voters, by and large, now see female candidates as specific people with specific platforms, not just as one dimensional, novelty candidates. Even the dumbest teabaggers know there is a vast difference between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. I don’t believe voters would punish future women candidates for the (most assured) incompetence that would come from a [del]Palin Persiden[/del]…a [del]Palin Presadenc[/del]…a [del]Palin Prseedinc[/del]…I can’t say it. You know the words.