Sarah Palin: I can beat Obama in 2012

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

… a dang ol’ Palin Administration.

[LouisB]

@Tom_Scud

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.

I hope you’re right but I take nothing for granted; as I said, anything is possible.

[Precambrianmollusc]

@Tom_Scud

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.
SNIP SNIPe.

I know you said “mount a serious prinary challange” , but do you think it possible that someone will mount a campaign more as a dry run thing. So Obama can get his campagin machine lubed up and running, float out some test messages to see how they are received and get any dirty laundry or troublesome issues out there and responded to so by the time it comes to the Election it can be said to be done and answered?

ETA - As this is really about Palin, the latest is she in not sure if North or South Korea are allies of the US.

[OttoDaFe]

You can’t expect her to since she can’t see either one from where she lives.

[LouisB]

@Precambrianmollusc

I know you said “mount a serious prinary challange” , but do you think it possible that someone will mount a campaign more as a dry run thing. So Obama can get his campagin machine lubed up and running, float out some test messages to see how they are received and get any dirty laundry or troublesome issues out there and responded to so by the time it comes to the Election it can be said to be done and answered?

ETA - As this is really about Palin, the latest is she in not sure if North or South Korea are allies of the US.

Did she really say that? If so, when and where and a link if possible. I will be spending the day with a clan of rabid republicans and I would love to have this knife with me to use if needed.

[LH75]

Sarah Palin said “Obviously we gotta stand with our North Korean allies” on the Glen Beck show

Sarah Palin Says US Must ‘Stand with North Korean Allies’

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101125/ts_alt_afp/nkoreaskoreamilitaryuspoliticspalin_20101125103138

[LH75]

audio of Sarah on the Glen Beck show:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/24/palin-north-korea/

[LouisB]

Before this thread drops off the front page, I’d like to thank everyone who responded for their inputs.

So, thanks, guys and gals and others.

[Typo_Knig]

@LouisB

Before this thread drops off the front page, I’d like to thank everyone who responded for their inputs.

So, thanks, guys and gals and others.

Did we come within the same ZIP Code as “answering your original question”?

[Onomatopoeia]

@Typo_Knig

Did we come within the same ZIP Code as “answering your original question”?

If the answer is ‘no’, then yes.

[Chefguy]

@gonzomax

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’m a Bush-hater, but this is way off the mark. The destruction of our economy started four presidents ago when Reagan appointed Greenspan as the Fed Chairman and allowed him to hike the Social Security tax. This took in over a trillion dollars that was supposedly for a Social Security “fund”. Instead, the next three presidents spent it like drunken sailors, deregulating banks and Wall Street along the way. The collapse just happened to fall during Bush’s regime, aided by wild military spending on a discretionary war.

[LouisB]

@Typo_Knig

Did we come within the same ZIP Code as “answering your original question”?

Yes, I think so even with the divergent opinions and irrelevant input(s). I appreciate the opinions that have been expressed, or most of them anyway.

[gonzomax]

@Chefguy

I’m a Bush-hater, but this is way off the mark. The destruction of our economy started four presidents ago when Reagan appointed Greenspan as the Fed Chairman and allowed him to hike the Social Security tax. This took in over a trillion dollars that was supposedly for a Social Security “fund”. Instead, the next three presidents spent it like drunken sailors, deregulating banks and Wall Street along the way. The collapse just happened to fall during Bush’s regime, aided by wild military spending on a discretionary war.

The bank dereg was pushed through in a lame duck session at the very end of Clintons term. He signed it. It was a last minute .late bill spearheaded by Repubs and bought off Dems.,that could not get through in regular session. It did not take effect until Bush came in and he was very happy with it.
Greenspan developed the S.S. fund to deal with the baby boomers. It was in the early 80s.
The decision to run 2 wars off the books, was the Shrubs. Why he decided that, I have no idea. I don’t think I ever heard it defended.

[Chefguy]

@gonzomax

The bank dereg was pushed through in a lame duck session at the very end of Clintons term. He signed it. It was a last minute .late bill spearheaded by Repubs and bought off Dems.,that could not get through in regular session. It did not take effect until Bush came in and he was very happy with it.
Greenspan developed the S.S. fund to deal with the baby boomers. It was in the early 80s.
The decision to run 2 wars off the books, was the Shrubs. Why he decided that, I have no idea. I don’t think I ever heard it defended.

My point is that the fund was never used for that purpose. It was plundered by every president from Reagan onwards and finally ran out during the Bush administration, when the head of the administration had the sorry duty to report that the account was empty. Greenspan kept cutting the rates during the 90s and beyond, even when there was little reason to do so, thus flooding the market with cheap cash. As a result, anybody could get money for nearly any investment, while you and I continuted to draw 1% on our CDs and MM accounts. The resultant bubble (which Greenspan said didn’t exist) finally burst as a result of two decades of uncontrolled spending and no oversight. It wasn’t the first time this sort of thing happened under his reign: remember the S&L scandals?