This weekend was hard on this Republican

[Value Buy]

After watching various news reports on the member after merber of the far far right of the Republicans embarrassing themselves publicly for America to see, I may have to retire from the party.

Palin was the last straw.

Her speech was embarrassing. Beyond embarrassing.

Bush and Mitt avoided the weekend fiasco, so as to be not be tainted by it, but I am afraid the far right has stolen the party much as the far left has stolen the Democratic party.

The Republican party has not been stolen by the Tea Party. The far far right make them look like blue dog Democrats. Dead on arrival.

I am beginning to believe that Bush or Mitt are doomed in the nomination process, and they are the only candidates that have a chance against Clinton.

[mroped]

You gotta take Bush out of the equation too! And Mitt has some redemption to do with some voters.
As of now, there isn't anybody in the republican side that could have a good run against Hillary. The republicans are way too factioned and they will tear each other to shreds in the primary.
Advantage...Hillary!

[zibazinski]

Yup, she must be laughing all the way to the bank. I won't vote for wither of those two dinosaurs. Republicans need to get out of personal lives and focus on jobs and economy. Hillary will finish this country off once and for all.

[workpublic]

Pataki is going to win

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 8:46:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

After watching various news reports on the member after merber of the far far right of the Republicans embarrassing themselves publicly for America to see, I may have to retire from the party.

Palin was the last straw.

Her speech was embarrassing. Beyond embarrassing.

Bush and Mitt avoided the weekend fiasco, so as to be not be tainted by it, but I am afraid the far right has stolen the party much as the far left has stolen the Democratic party.

The Republican party has not been stolen by the Tea Party. The far far right make them look like blue dog Democrats. Dead on arrival.

I am beginning to believe that Bush or Mitt are doomed in the nomination process, and they are the only candidates that have a chance against Clinton.

I don't watch these speeches.

What was Ms. Palin talking about that was so embarrassing? Also, what venue was she speaking at? Is she still a relevant Republican figure?

[Deleted]

Iowa summit. It was apparently rambling and at times incoherent. 

[bean29]

They said Governor Walker from WI was going to throw his name in the Ring. Did he?  What do you think of his chances.

I don't think he has a chance in He!! of Winning. I told DH he is probably angling for something else (maybe a cabinet nomination?).

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 10:15:33 GMT -5 oped said:

Iowa summit. It was apparently rambling and at times incoherent. 

That's quite often the case. But what about Ms. Palin's speech?

[Value Buy]

Jan 26, 2015 10:38:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 26, 2015 10:15:33 GMT -5 oped said:

Iowa summit. It was apparently rambling and at times incoherent. 

That's quite often the case. But what about Ms. Palin's speech?

It was worse than her " I can see Russia from my porch" speech.

It was a rambling speech and even people there came away scratching their heads. She has now been pushed to the old timers camp of Romney fame who should not be taken seriously anymore.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jan 26, 2015 10:38:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 26, 2015 10:15:33 GMT -5 oped said:

Iowa summit. It was apparently rambling and at times incoherent. 

That's quite often the case. But what about Ms. Palin's speech?

I saw a headline that said she's like to run again.  and that she held up a sign with both an obscenity and crosshairs on it (as part the person's name)  I didn't hear or read her speech though. 

[Deleted]

I was referring to  Palin's speech. It wasn't just Dems saying it was bizarre. In fact I think Dems said the least about it. I believe the exact quote was 'thank you'...

an excerpt: 
"Things must change for our government. Look at it. It isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to succeed! It's too big to succeed, so we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people and same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word, status quo, and it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’ That's status quo, and GOP leaders, by the way, y'know the man can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then the man can't ride ya, America won't be taken for a ride, because so much is at stake and we can't afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than, oh, maybe just the next standing of theirs in the next election."

[djAdvocate]

you have my sympathies, VB.  i mean that.

[mmhmm]

Oh, dear. Like dj says, I'm sorry, VB.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 10:46:49 GMT -5 oped said:

I was referring to  Palin's speech. It wasn't just Dems saying it was bizarre. In fact I think Dems said the least about it. I believe the exact quote was 'thank you'...

an excerpt: 
"Things must change for our government. Look at it. It isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to succeed! It's too big to succeed, so we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people and same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word, status quo, and it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’ That's status quo, and GOP leaders, by the way, y'know the man can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then the man can't ride ya, America won't be taken for a ride, because so much is at stake and we can't afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than, oh, maybe just the next standing of theirs in the next election."

It's definitely got some folksy Palin twang to it, but if that's the worst of it, it's not too bad.

Cut through the presentation and what we're left with is the message. In this case: the government has become far too big (true), middle-class America is being gutted by present economic policies (also demonstrably true), and Republican politicians will need to worry about more than their standing in the next election if America hopes to succeed (may or may not be true, but certainly a message most Republicans would approve of).

Hence it's a folksy version of a mission statement.

If the whole speech consisted of nothing but these kinds of general statements, then fine, it's a pretty lousy speech. If her mission statement was supplemented with proposals on how to shrink government, reverse the economic polarization of America, and bolster a genuine spirit of patriotism, judge the speech on the basis of whether you agree with Ms. Palin's goals and whether you feel her proposals are likely to accomplish them. The presentation is just window dressing.

You have two choices: If you're like me and you consider the US to be a failed Republic on the precipice of collapse, you can accept this as another bit of evidence supporting your thesis. If, on the other hand, you're like DJ, demin et al., clinging to the notion that the US isn't circling the drain, I submit to you that perhaps the ingredient needed to resurrect your country's fortunes is an electorate willing to look at third party candidates whose policies are agreeable and realistic.

If you don't want Ms. Clinton going to town on what remains of your country, and the Republicans aren't up to the task of defeating her, then be the first man on your block to throw your weight behind a third party candidate with policies worth voting for.

[Value Buy]

Jan 26, 2015 13:13:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 26, 2015 10:46:49 GMT -5 oped said:

I was referring to  Palin's speech. It wasn't just Dems saying it was bizarre. In fact I think Dems said the least about it. I believe the exact quote was 'thank you'...

an excerpt: 
"Things must change for our government. Look at it. It isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to succeed! It's too big to succeed, so we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people and same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word, status quo, and it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’ That's status quo, and GOP leaders, by the way, y'know the man can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then the man can't ride ya, America won't be taken for a ride, because so much is at stake and we can't afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than, oh, maybe just the next standing of theirs in the next election."

It's definitely got some folksy Palin twang to it, but if that's the worst of it, it's not too bad.

Cut through the presentation and what we're left with is the message. In this case: the government has become far too big (true), middle-class America is being gutted by present economic policies (also demonstrably true), and Republican politicians will need to worry about more than their standing in the next election if America hopes to succeed (may or may not be true, but certainly a message most Republicans would approve of).

Hence it's a folksy version of a mission statement.

If the whole speech consisted of nothing but these kinds of general statements, then fine, it's a pretty lousy speech. If her mission statement was supplemented with proposals on how to shrink government, reverse the economic polarization of America, and bolster a genuine spirit of patriotism, judge the speech on the basis of whether you agree with Ms. Palin's goals and whether you feel her proposals are likely to accomplish them. The presentation is just window dressing.

You have two choices: If you're like me and you consider the US to be a failed Republic on the precipice of collapse, you can accept this as another bit of evidence supporting your thesis. If, on the other hand, you're like DJ, demin et al., clinging to the notion that the US isn't circling the drain, I submit to you that perhaps the ingredient needed to resurrect your country's fortunes is an electorate willing to look at third party candidates whose policies are agreeable and realistic.

If you don't want Ms. Clinton going to town on what remains of your country, and the Republicans aren't up to the task of defeating her, then be the first man on your block to throw your weight behind a third party candidate with policies worth voting for.

Now if we could only get a third party candidate that siphons votes from the Democratic candidate.

Republicans have already lost a Presidential election to Dems because of a third party candidate

[Angel!]

Jan 26, 2015 13:34:29 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:13:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's definitely got some folksy Palin twang to it, but if that's the worst of it, it's not too bad.

Cut through the presentation and what we're left with is the message. In this case: the government has become far too big (true), middle-class America is being gutted by present economic policies (also demonstrably true), and Republican politicians will need to worry about more than their standing in the next election if America hopes to succeed (may or may not be true, but certainly a message most Republicans would approve of).

Hence it's a folksy version of a mission statement.

If the whole speech consisted of nothing but these kinds of general statements, then fine, it's a pretty lousy speech. If her mission statement was supplemented with proposals on how to shrink government, reverse the economic polarization of America, and bolster a genuine spirit of patriotism, judge the speech on the basis of whether you agree with Ms. Palin's goals and whether you feel her proposals are likely to accomplish them. The presentation is just window dressing.

You have two choices: If you're like me and you consider the US to be a failed Republic on the precipice of collapse, you can accept this as another bit of evidence supporting your thesis. If, on the other hand, you're like DJ, demin et al., clinging to the notion that the US isn't circling the drain, I submit to you that perhaps the ingredient needed to resurrect your country's fortunes is an electorate willing to look at third party candidates whose policies are agreeable and realistic.

If you don't want Ms. Clinton going to town on what remains of your country, and the Republicans aren't up to the task of defeating her, then be the first man on your block to throw your weight behind a third party candidate with policies worth voting for.

Now if we could only get a third party candidate that siphons votes from the Democratic candidate.

Republicans have already lost a Presidential election to Dems because of a third party candidate

And the Dems have lost an election to republicans due to a third party candidate.  It swings both ways.

[Angel!]

Jan 26, 2015 8:46:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I am beginning to believe that Bush or Mitt are doomed in the nomination process, and they are the only candidates that have a chance against Clinton.

If they were your only candidates that you believed had a chance, then you are screwed. I don't think either has a shot in hell against Clinton.

[Value Buy]

Jan 26, 2015 13:38:19 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:34:29 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Now if we could only get a third party candidate that siphons votes from the Democratic candidate.

Republicans have already lost a Presidential election to Dems because of a third party candidate

And the Dems have lost an election to republicans due to a third party candidate.  It swings both ways.

My memory is faulty when did the Dems lose a Presidential election because of a third party candidate, other than back when the Bull Moose party was rampant.

Heck, I do not know if they lost that one even.

And I am talking when the Democratic nominee had a chance of winning.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 13:34:29 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:13:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's definitely got some folksy Palin twang to it, but if that's the worst of it, it's not too bad.

Cut through the presentation and what we're left with is the message. In this case: the government has become far too big (true), middle-class America is being gutted by present economic policies (also demonstrably true), and Republican politicians will need to worry about more than their standing in the next election if America hopes to succeed (may or may not be true, but certainly a message most Republicans would approve of).

Hence it's a folksy version of a mission statement.

If the whole speech consisted of nothing but these kinds of general statements, then fine, it's a pretty lousy speech. If her mission statement was supplemented with proposals on how to shrink government, reverse the economic polarization of America, and bolster a genuine spirit of patriotism, judge the speech on the basis of whether you agree with Ms. Palin's goals and whether you feel her proposals are likely to accomplish them. The presentation is just window dressing.

You have two choices: If you're like me and you consider the US to be a failed Republic on the precipice of collapse, you can accept this as another bit of evidence supporting your thesis. If, on the other hand, you're like DJ, demin et al., clinging to the notion that the US isn't circling the drain, I submit to you that perhaps the ingredient needed to resurrect your country's fortunes is an electorate willing to look at third party candidates whose policies are agreeable and realistic.

If you don't want Ms. Clinton going to town on what remains of your country, and the Republicans aren't up to the task of defeating her, then be the first man on your block to throw your weight behind a third party candidate with policies worth voting for.

Now if we could only get a third party candidate that siphons votes from the Democratic candidate.

Republicans have already lost a Presidential election to Dems because of a third party candidate

There's going to have to be pain sometime.

If you want a silver lining, it's that Ms. Clinton's Presidency is going to be facing crisis after crisis that she'll have no power to prevent, but that the Democrats will (deservedly, to a degree) bear the blame for.

If a third party movement starts up now and gains even a bit of momentum by 2016, the events of 2016-2020 could propel it to heights you wouldn't imagine. Start now and in five years you might be somewhere. Don't get locked into the false dialectic.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 13:43:24 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:38:19 GMT -5 Angel! said:

And the Dems have lost an election to republicans due to a third party candidate.  It swings both ways.

My memory is faulty when did the Dems lose a Presidential election because of a third party candidate, other than back when the Bull Moose party was rampant.

Heck, I do not know if they lost that one even.

And I am talking when the Democratic nominee had a chance of winning.

I think she's referring to Mr. Nader.

[Jaguar]

Considering that it's Hillary for Dems, is it wise for Reps to put forth their strongest candidate against her ?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2015 13:43:24 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:38:19 GMT -5 Angel! said:

And the Dems have lost an election to republicans due to a third party candidate.  It swings both ways.

My memory is faulty when did the Dems lose a Presidential election because of a third party candidate, other than back when the Bull Moose party was rampant.

Heck, I do not know if they lost that one even.

And I am talking when the Democratic nominee had a chance of winning.

2000.  Green party siphoned 1% of the vote away from Gore in Florida.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2015 13:48:55 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Considering that it's Hillary for Dems, is it wise for Reps to put forth their strongest candidate against her ?

yes, and Robotney was the best last time, and he got fairly well clobbered.  i doubt he would do better running again.  those that disliked him last time are likely going to dislike him this time.

[Jaguar]

Jan 26, 2015 14:01:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:48:55 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Considering that it's Hillary for Dems, is it wise for Reps to put forth their strongest candidate against her ?

yes, and Robotney was the best last time, and he got fairly well clobbered.  i doubt he would do better running again.  those that disliked him last time are likely going to dislike him this time.

He's perfect line him up.

[Ryan]

Jan 26, 2015 8:46:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

After watching various news reports on the member after merber of the far far right of the Republicans embarrassing themselves publicly for America to see, I may have to retire from the party.

Palin was the last straw.

Her speech was embarrassing. Beyond embarrassing.

Bush and Mitt avoided the weekend fiasco, so as to be not be tainted by it, but I am afraid the far right has stolen the party much as the far left has stolen the Democratic party.

The Republican party has not been stolen by the Tea Party. The far far right make them look like blue dog Democrats. Dead on arrival.

I am beginning to believe that Bush or Mitt are doomed in the nomination process, and they are the only candidates that have a chance against Clinton.

I wouldn't elect Palin necessarily, but she wasn't any bigger idiot than the other idiots that are elected.  The only difference is that the idiots that are elected sound smart when they are delivering idiotic statements.

[Value Buy]

Jan 26, 2015 13:59:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:43:24 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

My memory is faulty when did the Dems lose a Presidential election because of a third party candidate, other than back when the Bull Moose party was rampant.

Heck, I do not know if they lost that one even.

And I am talking when the Democratic nominee had a chance of winning.

2000.  Green party siphoned 1% of the vote away from Gore in Florida.

But, but, but, everyone said Bush stole the Florida election in the dead of night

[Value Buy]

Jan 26, 2015 14:01:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2015 13:48:55 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Considering that it's Hillary for Dems, is it wise for Reps to put forth their strongest candidate against her ?

yes, and Robotney was the best last time, and he got fairly well clobbered.  i doubt he would do better running again.  those that disliked him last time are likely going to dislike him this time.

ok, but will the black and University student vote come out enmasse and vote for Hillary?

I do not think so.

Jeb could also pull some Spanish American votes also.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 26, 2015 10:46:49 GMT -5 oped said:

I was referring to  Palin's speech. It wasn't just Dems saying it was bizarre. In fact I think Dems said the least about it. I believe the exact quote was 'thank you'...

an excerpt: 
"Things must change for our government. Look at it. It isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to succeed! It's too big to succeed, so we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people and same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word, status quo, and it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’ That's status quo, and GOP leaders, by the way, y'know the man can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then the man can't ride ya, America won't be taken for a ride, because so much is at stake and we can't afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than, oh, maybe just the next standing of theirs in the next election."

Was she drunk again?

Yes, that sounds exactly like someone with a degree in...journalism!!

[Deleted]

Please don't offend folksy people by labeling that drivel as such...

[zibazinski]

All she needed to do for a finale is flip her hair and with her best valley girl slang, say "whatever!"