Sarah Palin: Will She Run for President in 2012?

[Amp1]

I'd vote for you too. That was good! I kinda thought I could see something like that going on in her mind. Whenever she gives a speech at a teabagger rally.

 

[WhoWee]

BTW, not that it matters, but If McCain had chosen Dick Lugar as his running-mate, I firmly believe those two geezers would be #1 and #2 today, instead of Obama and Biden.

Turbo, you still haven't addressed how Lugar would have brought home a win - as compared to Palin - and tied it into this whole Goldwater discussion - are you going to enlighten us?

 

[WhoWee]

I'd vote for you too. That was good! I kinda thought I could see something like that going on in her mind. Whenever she gives a speech at a teabagger rally.

??

 

[turbo]

Turbo, you still haven't addressed how Lugar would have brought home a win - as compared to Palin - and tied it into this whole Goldwater discussion - are you going to enlighten us?

I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).

BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him.

 

[Al68]

Also blatantly obvious is that you have not been able to explain why W's major policies were "conservative" in any sense of the word.

What are you talking about? Why would I try to explain something I don't believe? The only Bush policy I remember calling conservative were tax cuts, which clearly are by everyone's definition except your private one you use to mislead people with.

A true conservative would do his/her best to shelter what we have, improve incrementally whenever possible, and pass on a better society (including economic security) to later generations.

Nonsense. That's not what the word means. Again, you know that. You cannot possibly be honestly this confused.

It's time to stop the madness. If you favor raising taxes and increasing regulation over private business, just say so instead of trying to absurdly claim that such policies are conservative.

BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian...

That's what I've been saying. He was both socially and economically libertarian, like me. At least more like me than any other national politician of my lifetime.

And more opposed to the views you espouse than any other as well. That's why Dems called him an right-wing extremist.

 

[WhoWee]

I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).

BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him.

Are you categorizing Lugar as a Goldwater conservative?

 

[turbo]

Are you categorizing Lugar as a Goldwater conservative?

No, I am not. I'm saying that Lugar is a rational old-time conservative with a record. A comfortable choice for VP, with lots of pull back in Congress, and a sure vote-getter.

I would have voted for that ticket. I didn't want Clinton and her baggage, and Obama was too much of an unknown, so McCain/Lugar would have gotten my vote and IMO the votes of a great many moderates and independents.

 

[Al68]

No, I am not. I'm saying that Lugar is a rational old-time conservative with a record.

Yes, a record of voting predominantly with Bush, including all the tax cuts you oppose. He's not one of my personal favorites, partly because he's pro-life, but his economic views are nothing like the ones you espouse.

BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him.

I certainly agree with that, but he had the exact same disagreement with Lugar being pro-life, so I don't see your point.

 

[CAC1001]

40% of the tax breaks went to that tiny portion of the populace making more than $500K/year. That's regressive and hardly equitable.

I don't know the details of the tax cuts in terms of percentages, but I know Bush did everything from cut the capital gains and dividend tax rates, cut all income tax rates, the Child Income Tax Credit was doubled, and a few other things I think. So everyone got helped by them.

If you want to stimulate the economy, you direct tax cuts toward the people who have to spend their income, not the wealthy who have discretion in that regard.

He did though through his cuts for the middle and lower-income brackets, the tax credit, and so forth. That is demand-side stimulus. His cuts for the upper-brackets that affected small businesses filing as individuals (I don't know how many though) were supply-side. Those businesses that were able to hire more people, the immediate benefit of the tax cut went to the middle-income and poorer folks, as those were likely the ones who were hired. The business with the tax cut hires more people in the hopes of benefiting in the future by making more money, but the immediate benefit is to the hired workers.

Gamblers in the financial sectors were buying up risky sub-prime loans, bundling them, getting them misbranded as high-grade investments.

How do you know they were "getting them misbranded?" Part of that fault is the ratings agencies who messed up big-time. I don't know if regulations would have been able to prevent that.

They made derivative bets against their customers who bought the bundles and made lots of money when the investments fell apart.

Certain people did, other institutions nearly completely collapsed. Even Goldman-Sachs, what likely saved them was the AIG bailout.

Lack of regulation was a big problem. Regulation of the financial markets is not intended to make it difficult for honest financiers to make money - it is intended to prevent the massive fraud that led to the current financial mess we're in.

I agree, but regulation isn't a panacea, and I don't know if it would have been able to prevent the crisis from occurring. Wall Street itself didn't seem to know what Wall Street was doing. One problem was the complexity of the securities; by the time the regulators would wrap their head around one, there's be multiple new ones.

Also, their level of capitalization was never required to increase to offset the size of their bets, nor the grading of the investments they traded in. Astronuc covered this pretty thoroughly in another thread.

I agree here, they probably need high capitalization requirements.

Wall Street under W was the wild west, and it is really no better now.

I don't think if President Bush had tried to increase regulation of Wall Street, that it would have done much. A big, massive bill would not have worked. He'd have had to do it incrementally. He did sign Sarbannes-Oxley. But another problem was many didn't recognize there was any problem in the first place.

 

[CAC1001]

Yes, a record of voting predominantly with Bush, including all the tax cuts you oppose. He's not one of my personal favorites, partly because he's pro-life, but his economic views are nothing like the ones you espouse.

Was under the impression you are pro-life...

 

[Al68]

Was under the impression you are pro-life...

I don't know how you got that impression. I'm a libertarian.

I don't know the details of the tax cuts in terms of percentages, but I know Bush did everything from cut the capital gains and dividend tax rates, cut all income tax rates, the Child Income Tax Credit was doubled, and a few other things I think. So everyone got helped by them.

The Bush tax cuts actually shifted the tax burden from the poor and middle class to the rich. The only way they get that 40% figure is to look at it backwards, as if the future tax revenues already belong to government, add it up, then act like they are giving money to someone. Just delusional Marxist logic.

 

[CAC1001]

I couldn't care less what Palin's political views are. It's quotations like this (from the Sean Hannity show) that just drive me nuts:

What, Sarah?! What the heck do you recognize?! Yaaagh!

Yeah, she'll make statements where you go, "HUH!? What did you just say!?"

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, she'll make statements where you go, "HUH!? What did you just say!?"

It sounds like she would have made a great VP (Biden)

 

[Al68]

It sounds like she would have made a great VP (Biden)

Times 2.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't know how you got that impression. I'm a libertarian.

Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else.

 

[mheslep]

Being libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.

Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism. I'd say the libertarian view also generally holds that the Federal government has no business striking down state laws with invented powers, and likewise the states are free to have their own laws in this regard.

 

[WhoWee]

Being libertarian is not contradictory with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.

Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism. I'd say the libertarian view also generally holds that the Federal government has no business striking down state laws with invented powers, and likewise the states are free to have their own laws in this regard.

After reading this and
Turbo:
"I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).

BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him. "

I'm still motivated to label myself an "Unrepresented Angry Independent" - set my own rules.

 

[Al68]

Being libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.

Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism.

I agree with that, and I agree that a fetus is a person. But even if a fetus is a person, it has no right to force another person to "host" it. The pro-life side demands rights for fetus' that no other person has, or could have, in a libertarian society.

Semantically, one could argue that a libertarian government could prohibit directly killing a fetus, but could not prohibit simply cutting/crimping the cord, knowing that it will die, then just wait until the fetus is a corpse instead of a person. But as a practical matter, that's a moot point, and an inhumane alternative to the normal abortion procedure, especially if it's late term.

But I must admit that abortion is a tough issue. It, far more than any other issue in my mind, has a legitimate, honest, and compelling argument on each side. That makes it very different from most issues.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Semantically, one could argue that a libertarian government could prohibit directly killing a fetus, but could not prohibit simply cutting/crimping the cord, knowing that it will die, then just wait until the fetus is a corpse instead of a person. But as a practical matter, that's a moot point, and an inhumane alternative to the normal abortion procedure, especially if it's late term.

In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?

 

[Al68]

In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?

You can do that now in the U.S. In fact, a mother can just leave her baby at the hospital when it's born. No one is forced to care for a baby, but since we have plenty of volunteers to adopt, it's a moot point.

Of course, if the mother voluntarily has custody (and its obligations), failure to feed it while in her custody would certainly be neglect, but that's a different issue. She is free to give up custody. After birth, a baby needs care, but not from a specific person against their will. And there are extensive waiting lists of volunteers.

 

[turbo]

In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?

We had a similar situation in which some cultists from MA moved to ME and declined to get adequate medical care for their ill infant because "God will provide" and they wanted nothing to do with modern medicine. It's been a few years, so I don't know if I can dig up the links, but it was in all the papers. It was really sad.

The defense couched the actions of the parents as an exercise of religious freedom.

OK, found a link to the Body of Christ.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone off topic, abortion is too closely tied to religious discussion. So please return to discussing Palin.

I wrote this before you posted turbo, not aimed at you.

 

[WhoWee]

This looked like a fun way to get back to the topic of Sarah Palin...
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86763/20101129/sarah-palin-criticized-for-beating-fish-to-death-on-show.htm
"Sarah Palin criticized for beating fish to death on show"

 

[ThomasT]

Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it? Familiarity. Name recognition and association with familiar values. (Campaigning for Ralph Nader during a couple of his candidacies, most people that I talked to said they had never heard of him.) I'm guessing that most people associate Palin with being a regular person, not much different from them, who shares their values and would do what they think is the right thing to do in most situations.

If the American people could elect George W. Bush to two terms, then it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they might elect Sarah Palin to at least one term. The only question seems to be whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman to the Presidency. My guess is that, assuming she wants to be elected to the Presidency, given the current level of media exposure, she can be the President.

From my own personal perspective she seems a bit phony. But then so do most politicians. And I have to wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, aren't all of us a bit phony now and then? It does seem to be a necessary requirement for election to, and holding, public office. In terms of the notion of a country of, by and for the people, we, the people, seem to understand, if not necessarily want, this, because, after all, these are the people that we elect.

Ok, there's certainly more to it than that. But I'll just stop here. Opinion: an emphatic yes, Sarah Palin could be the next US President.

 

[WhoWee]

Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it? Familiarity. Name recognition and association with familiar values. (Campaigning for Ralph Nader during a couple of his candidacies, most people that I talked to said they had never heard of him.) I'm guessing that most people associate Palin with being a regular person, not much different from them, who shares their values and would do what they think is the right thing to do in most situations.

If the American people could elect George W. Bush to two terms, then it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they might elect Sarah Palin to at least one term. The only question seems to be whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman to the Presidency. My guess is that, assuming she wants to be elected to the Presidency, given the current level of media exposure, she can be the President.

From my own personal perspective she seems a bit phony. But then so do most politicians. And I have to wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, aren't all of us a bit phony now and then? It does seem to be a necessary requirement for election to, and holding, public office. In terms of the notion of a country of, by and for the people, we, the people, seem to understand, if not necessarily want, this, because, after all, these are the people that we elect.

Ok, there's certainly more to it than that. But I'll just stop here. Opinion: an emphatic yes, Sarah Palin could be the next US President.

The question might be - is the US ready for a female President? I thought Hillary tried too soon. Here is an overview of female candidates in the various 2010 elections.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/elections/candidates_2010.php

From the list, I think Meg Whitman would be an interesting candidate - had she won. Her support outside of CA appears to have been greater than inside the state, and people LOVE ebay.

Missing from your example is the election of President Obama. He ran from the mid-point of his freshman term, very little experience, and quite unknown - yet the voters embraced him.

 

[Evo]

Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it?

Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.

Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

 

[BobG]

Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.

Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

Intelligence is mandatory?

George W Bush vs Al Gore?

Perhaps not a fair analysis since I have no idea what Bush's intelligence level is. Still, considering he quit drinking and first started taking a serious look at life at the age of 40 and that he was elected President only 14 years later, you at least have a competition between a 14-year-old and an adult.

Intellect isn't a mandatory requirement for anything.

 

[Evo]

Intelligence is mandatory?

George W Bush vs Al Gore?

Perhaps not a fair analysis since I have no idea what Bush's intelligence level is. Still, considering he quit drinking and first started taking a serious look at life at the age of 40 and that he was elected President only 14 years later, you at least have a competition between a 14-year-old and an adult.

Intellect isn't a mandatory requirement for anything.

So true, but you've got to admit that lack of intelligence was one of the major strikes against her.

I love this video.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

 

[Dembadon]

So true, but you've got to admit that lack of intelligence was one of the major strikes against her.

I love this video.



L8__aXxXPVc

This is another good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

 

[WhoWee]

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

I'm not as convinced that Obama carried the election because of his intelligence - now his personality is/was certainly a factor. That aside, one of the reasons I think Meg Whitman would have been a strong national candidate was her business success with ebay - I assumed she is intelligent (but who knows?).

 

[mheslep]

This is another good one:

Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?

 

[WhoWee]

This is another good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?

Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.

 

[turbo]

Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?

His comments were well thought-out. That's what made them good. The fact that he is a movie star gets him some public exposure that the rest of us don't get.

Palin gets exposure, too, though she can barely string two coherent thoughts together. She remembers her talking-points and buzz-words and tries to get them all in, regardless of their relevance - thus the oddly disjointed non-sequitur speaking style. The US public has a fixation with "stars". Palin is a "star" because she ran for VP. Her daughter is a "star" because she is an abstinence-only unwed mother whose mother ran for VP.

I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".

 

[WhoWee]

His comments were well thought-out. That's what made them good. The fact that he is a movie star gets him some public exposure that the rest of us don't get.

Palin gets exposure, too, though she can barely string two coherent thoughts together. She remembers her talking-points and buzz-words and tries to get them all in, regardless of their relevance - thus the oddly disjointed non-sequitur speaking style. The US public has a fixation with "stars". Palin is a "star" because she ran for VP. Her daughter is a "star" because she is an abstinence-only unwed mother whose mother ran for VP.

I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".

The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?

 

[turbo]

The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?

At the time that clip was recorded, all those "talking points" were current-affairs. Topics of interest that hit the media and the blogs. Was he not supposed to mention them? It would be like me slamming you for mentioning Charles Rangel's ethics violations and speculating about his punishment (or lack of).