T Nation

Sarah: Poll Shows She's for Real

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am a sexist, she would make King George look like a genious[/quote]

She’s have to compete with obama in that category; and at his present pace, that’s gonna be tough.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:

Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB. [/quote]

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
All I want Sarah to do is show us her tits. Other than that, I kinda wish she’d go away, even if I agree with her on many points.
That whole leaving the governorship showed me she ain’t presidential material. [/quote]

x2.

I want her to lay on her back, grab her tits, and say “You can see RUSSIA from the tops of these babies!”[/quote]

lol!!

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:

Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB. [/quote]

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Would obviously depend on the person, of course, but I think this is a good point - rank pendulum swinging to “solve” the problem of the previous president just makes the pendulum swing more and more.

What would be good is someone who can just be the grown-up in the room and send the screeching ideologues to their rooms without supper. Don’t fight fire with fire for a change, fight fire with water.

[quote]John S. wrote:

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.[/quote]

Not of the same political tribe - learn history.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.[/quote]

Not of the same political tribe - learn history.[/quote]

I am pretty sure Teddy was about regulating businesses - Try and not be a jackass.

This should help you understand the progressive era. Its wiki but its a nice start.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:

Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB. [/quote]

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

I agree…but how will we ever get to a point where a president like that is even possible. Especially,when the polarized two-party system has too much control over who they want to become front-runners for their respective parties.

It’s like the parents who tell their kids to choose between toaster strudel and Pop tarts when there’s that delicious plate of waffles within reach…lol.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:

Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB. [/quote]

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.[/quote]

Comparing Teddy to BHO? I’ll have to disagree here IMMENSLEY. There’s no comparison there at all IMHO. Teddy was progressive in some areas and for his time, while being conservative in others. Teddy believed that the POTUS had all the powers not forbiden by the constitution, BHO believes the constitution a roadblock to his statist agenda, and must be overcome.

You simply cannot compare the “progressivism” of Teddy with obama’s brand of progressivism.

I know a lot of very hard-core GOP voters (fuck, I’m in WYOMING for christ’s sake) here and especially in Colorado who just plain didn’t vote last year because of her. These are people who didn’t like McCain that much, and many who liked him a lot, who would have voted for him over Obama no matter what…well almost. Palin actually mattered more. They still would never vote for a Democrat, but they didn’t vote for McCain either.

I don’t know if McCain would be president now if he’d picked Ridge or Romney or even Pawlenty, but it sure would have been a lot closer. It wouldn’t have mattered for Wyoming’s EC vote, but is damn sure did in Colorado, and probably a few other swing states too.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:

Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB. [/quote]

I worry about the extreme swings in ideology that we as a nation seem to be progressing to. I’m reading “A Lion In The White House” right now, and I’m thinking that this country could use a charasmatic, middle of the road president like Teddy Roosevelt right now.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.[/quote]

Comparing Teddy to BHO? I’ll have to disagree here IMMENSLEY. There’s no comparison there at all IMHO. Teddy was progressive in some areas and for his time, while being conservative in others. Teddy believed that the POTUS had all the powers not forbiden by the constitution, BHO believes the constitution a roadblock to his statist agenda, and must be overcome.

You simply cannot compare the “progressivism” of Teddy with obama’s brand of progressivism.
[/quote]

Teddy was the first foot in the door for progressives. And why did he feel it was his job to regulate businesses I am 100% sure that is not in the constitution.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Teddy was a progressive, we already have one of those in the white house right now.[/quote]

Not of the same political tribe - learn history.[/quote]

I am pretty sure Teddy was about regulating businesses - Try and not be a jackass.

This should help you understand the progressive era. Its wiki but its a nice start.[/quote]

It’s one thing to regulate areas of business for the benefit of the free market, it’s quite another for a president to seemingly want to regulate the economy at large. This is where I find myself disagreeing with the libertarians. Business needs to be regulated to a certain degree IMHO; I believe that a true laize fair economy would lead to economic dictatorships.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

It’s one thing to regulate areas of business for the benefit of the free market, it’s quite another for a president to seemingly want to regulate the economy at large. This is where I find myself disagreeing with the libertarians. Business needs to be regulated to a certain degree IMHO; I believe that a true laize fair economy would lead to economic dictatorships.
[/quote]

And this is why we have so many problems, you can’t have things in the middle. There will be a constant power struggle and everything goes to shit. If business where left alone the free market would regulate the businesses just fine. Why in Gods name would you trust the government over everyday people.

Hows Goldman Sachs treating you. Fanny and Freddie arnt they just nice. Need I go on? Government regulation has led to economic dictatorship.

There’s already a centrist party. They’re called the Republican Party. Other than that, you have a Democrat party that is now borderline socialist, a small Libertarian Party, and conservatives who might vote GoP just to keep Democrats out. Though, on the last, I think conservatives are going to do so less and less while looking for alternatives. Me? I’m only voting ‘far’ right, and I refuse to vote GoP.

Basically, I don’t see this pendulum. I see a government that keeps growing, programs that keep expanding, even new programs, and a culture sliding into madness (see the CDC stats for unwed motherhood recently?). Where can I find the victories of the small government, traditional values, right? When was our border secured? Seems to me this country has gone in one direction with very little deviation.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
There’s already a centrist party. They’re called the Republican Party. Other than that, you have a Democrat party that is now borderline socialist, a small Libertarian Party, and conservatives who might vote GoP just to keep Democrats out. Though, on the last, I think conservatives are going to do so less and less while looking for alternatives. Me? I’m only voting ‘far’ right, and I refuse to vote GoP.

Basically, I don’t see this pendulum. I see a government that keeps growing, programs that keep expanding, even new programs, and a culture sliding into madness (see the CDC stats for unwed motherhood recently?). Where can I find the victories of the small government, traditional values, right? When was our border secured? Seems to me this country has gone in one direction with very little deviation. [/quote]

When we have Powell (and multitudes of others) declaring the GOP under GWB an extreme right wing state of affairs, I don’t see how what you said can be denied. The Republican party has simply been less liberal than the Democrats and not always by that much.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?

Carry on.

[quote]John S. wrote:

I am pretty sure Teddy was about regulating businesses - Try and not be a jackass.

This should help you understand the progressive era. Its wiki but its a nice start.[/quote]

Business has been regulated since the birth of the Republic, and the Constitution expressly provides for the power of it. The mere act of “regulating business” isn’t determinative as to being classified as the kind of “progressive” Obama is.

If you are right with your simplistic category, everyone from George Washington to even Thomas Jefferson was a damnable “progressive”, because there has always been some regulation of interstate business. Period.

Not being a jackass - your “Ron Paul” version of history is as stilted and problematic as the “Karl Marx” version. So, again, learn history.

The chosen one is a horrible debater. He’s not a great speaker w/o his teleprompter either. Palin would rip him apart in a debate, especially since he would actually have to defend his actions rather then blame Bush for everything.