Could She Reach the Top in 2012? You Betcha

BF2K

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Posts
221
Media
3
Likes
68
Points
273
Location
SE of Paris - won't say how far.
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Hitler himself outlined the Nazi's use of propaganda to "take over" Germany even though, up to that time and even for several years after, a majority of Germans didn't / couldn't believe that the evil that was ultimately manifested could actually become implanted in their nation. Nazi propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you realize that the Nazi propaganda machine used President Wilson's (major progressive that also was the first President in the 20th Century to segregate blacks from whites in the Military and put thousands of US citizens of German decent into concentration camps in the US. Roosevelt did the same with the Japanese during WWII) as a model? The ONLY propaganda we need to be afraid of is that that is disseminated by the Government, otherwise people have the choice to either turn the channel or not buy the newspaper.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I remember thinking,"I hope they nominate G.W Bush because the country will never be stupid enought to elect him."

I remember thinking," I hope they nominate Reagan because the country will never be to stupid enough to elect him."

And we all know how those elections turned out.
I've learned to never UNDER estimate this country's electorate's willingness to embrace stupidity.
I have the same sort of worry. To take an example from more recent history, remember that the Democrats in Nevada were eager to see Sharron Angle get the Republican nomination for the senatorial race. She didn't win Harry Reid's seat, but she came frighteningly close.
 

D_Miltie Orgasmic

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
153
Do you realize that the Nazi propaganda machine used President Wilson's (major progressive that also was the first President in the 20th Century to segregate blacks from whites in the Military and put thousands of US citizens of German decent into concentration camps in the US. Roosevelt did the same with the Japanese during WWII) as a model? The ONLY propaganda we need to be afraid of is that that is disseminated by the Government, otherwise people have the choice to either turn the channel or not buy the newspaper.

BTW, Wilson was hardly a "major Progressive" just b/c he was a Democrat...any more than T Roosevelt was a major Regressive just because he was a Republican. Wilson's only "progressive" action was to try to help Europe avoid the mistakes of its past but -- which, with the help of the French who were more interested in revenge -- sunk.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The epic failure of Wilson's ideals have nothing to do with Sarah Palin. I also think that we really need a moratorium on wheeling out the fetid corpses of the 20th century every time we want to make some point about the present via direct comparison. It cheapens historical lessons and distracts us from current reality.

Anyone who truly believes that "progressive" means the same thing today that it meant 100 years ago doesn't understand the term, just like anyone who cannot/will not recognize that the two big political parties went through a realignment in the 1960s and 1970s just can't accept reality, and I'm not a fan of magical thinking in any form.

I'm afraid you are overestimating the power of the Fox News Party (formerly known as the Republican Party). If Palin runs, I'm afraid a majority of Americans are stupid enough to vote for her...in the giant electoral states: Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan....in the rest of the middle west (Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri...), mountain states (Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Arizona...), in smaller states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Delaware and in the south: Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana. The only states where she might have a problem are California (but even this is suspect), New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Illinois, Maryland, maybe Oregon, maybe Washington. She may even have some trouble in the most progressive of the southern states, North Carolina and Virginia --but it'll be a stretch.

The Fox News Party's goal is to destroy progressives and the Democratic Party. They are well on their way to accomplishing this task. Sorry to be so gloomly but I'm shocked to hear people reguritate the Right-wing lies they hear/read on a daily basis...and am convinced, as is Paul Krugman said in his editorial today in the NY Times, that this country is in serious trouble and under real threat from the Lunatic Right.

The Fox News Party has taken a page directly out of the pages of Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels and Americans, never very good at history, are falling for it.

Did you mean "underestimate" in the first paragraph? Otherwise nothing that comes later makes any sense. And I truly believe that you don't understand the nature of Palin's appeal if you think that Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Virginia (for starters) all of which Obama carried in 2008 run any serious risk of electing that batshit barracuda from Wasilla.

Like I said above, she polls terribly poorly with moderates (of all political brands), Independents and especially women. And just because she has an aura of "the real" about her inarticulate diatribes and tweets (most if not all of her written material, whether published in books or via FB are ghost-written), that doesn't mean that she's considered fit to be the leader of the free world. There are a lot of idiots out there, but the country hasn't come unglued just yet. How many of the candidates he supported actually won in their elections?

She's had two years to bone up on policy and catch up on current events but instead prefers being a celebrity over being a politician. She's unserious as she is disingenuous about herself: there's no there there. What she's got is incredible name recognition and an oddly obsessed MSM that drools over her every word, no matter how pointless. Mama Grizzly my ass!
 

FuzzyKen

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
193
Gender
Male
What I am guessing is that you will not see her running for President, but, you will again see her running in a VP seat. If she were in the number one seat she would be defeated, and this would not get her near enough to power.

The number one seat will be some individual who is totally expendable to the GOP but a person who is benign and appears middle of the road. That individual will leave office either in some sort of scandal OR in a pine box if necessary in order to get her into the number one seat.

At that point major corporations and other right wing extremist groups will be in the driver's seat because they need not a President at all but a "stooge" who will follow the orders of a bunch of "corrupt" advisors.

Palin in the White House will take this Country within six months into complete destruction. She does not have the ability to be a leader and she does not have the experience in negotiation to do anything other than harm.

If she get's in, the one thing I can guarantee is that Levi will need full time security guards so the CIA doesn't get him.

That idiotic woman getting in is no joke. She is not a candidate of the people she is a candidate of the ultra right wing extremists groups. We will very quickly have a police state and she will with little hesitation "create it" because that is what she will be advised to do.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
With regards to the 2008 US Presidential Election, I actually think that if McCain had more wisely chosen his running mate, the election results would have been very different indeed. It is quite clear to me that there remains a gigantic segment of US society that is averse to a dark-skinned person in the White House (especially one they've been told is a "liberal"). Despite all the upswell of support for Obama in the Primaries, all the apparent national goodwill, I was concerned right up to election day that the extent of voters disturbed by his perceived other-ness would deny him victory. The wind that blew his sails full and carried him to victory, in my opinion, was Sarah Palin. Or, more accurately, the grave concern and doubt a huge swath of the populace felt when they imagined Palin in the White House.

Perhaps Obama would have been victorious regardless, but I think that a McCain/Romney or McCain/Huckabee or McCain/[insert fiscally responsible, socially moderate telegenic candidate here] may very well have carried the election. If anything, I would think Palin's antics since the election could only have deepened people's concerns about her worthiness as a Presidential candidate. I take the comparisons with Reagan and George W. Bush as valid points to consider. But, at least to my thinking, Palin is several orders of magnitude beyond those two in terms of her unelectability.

Of course, I could be incorrect in my estimations. But I don't think so.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
What I am guessing is that you will not see her running for President, but, you will again see her running in a VP seat. If she were in the number one seat she would be defeated, and this would not get her near enough to power.
That's a pretty scary idea, but I don't think that any presidential candidate would want to have her as a running mate, as she would at the same time vastly outshine him and be an utterly unpredictable and uncontrollable liability to him.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
With regards to the 2008 US Presidential Election, I actually think that if McCain had more wisely chosen his running mate, the election results would have been very different indeed. It is quite clear to me that there remains a gigantic segment of US society that is averse to a dark-skinned person in the White House (especially one they've been told is a "liberal"). Despite all the upswell of support for Obama in the Primaries, all the apparent national goodwill, I was concerned right up to election day that the extent of voters disturbed by his perceived other-ness would deny him victory. The wind that blew his sails full and carried him to victory, in my opinion, was Sarah Palin. Or, more accurately, the grave concern and doubt a huge swath of the populace felt when they imagined Palin in the White House.

Perhaps Obama would have been victorious regardless, but I think that a McCain/Romney or McCain/Huckabee or McCain/[insert fiscally responsible, socially moderate telegenic candidate here] may very well have carried the election. If anything, I would think Palin's antics since the election could only have deepened people's concerns about her worthiness as a Presidential candidate. I take the comparisons with Reagan and George W. Bush as valid points to consider. But, at least to my thinking, Palin is several orders of magnitude beyond those two in terms of her unelectability.

Of course, I could be incorrect in my estimations. But I don't think so.

I agree with much of this, ST. The Bradley Effect would likely have had a much greater effect had there been any plausible alternative in 2008, but there wasn't one.

I disagree, however, that McCain can blame Palin for his defeat: he did a craptastically brilliant job of losing all by himself ("Bomb Iran"; "We're all Georgians"; suspending his campaign in wake of the Wall St meltdown; his disgustingly hypocritical and deeply disingenuously deep bow to both the Confederacy and religious right). His lazy and unvetted selection of his running mate (paying overdue deference to Bill Kristol and all the other Neocons he made a career of despising so thoroughly) was merely the icing on an otherwise inedible cake.

I do agree, however, that placing the Wasilla Wackjob a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72-year old cancer survivor ensured his defeat, I just don't think it caused it.

I read this blog post this morning when I got up and felt immediately that it belonged here. I concur with the commenter who posted this:

Unlike 2008 when the election of a Democratic President had certain advantages for those GOP leaders and key constituencies who could look beyond immediate events, in 2012, the Republicans will be going full-bore for the presidency. Corralling independents will be key, and Palin is a demonstrated liability in this respect. Her inglorious departure from the Alaska governorship makes her even less appealing. Nothing is impossible, but I think it unlikely that she will be anything but a cheerleader. I think the GOP leadership will do whatever it takes to ensure no repeat of the 2010 Delaware senate race in a much more important contest.
 
D

deleted3782

Guest
I think Palin is exposing an interesting fault-line among conservatives...a line that has been exposed as recently as the past few days. Republicans used to consist of the country club set, those with a high net worth who had a good business sense and conservative social values. Since Jimmy Carter, the party has added conservative Christians, military families, rural individualists, and now the suburban soccer moms to their block. Palin is turning into a big turn-off for the established country club set...who often seem to favor Romney, but a huge turn-on for the recent Republican ad-ons. If she can convince the party leadership - who have traditionally tightly orchestrated candidates - that she is "the one", it will illustrate a remarkable shift of the center of the party from its historical composition. When Palin shot back at Barbara Bush for her swipe on Larry King by saying "I think the majority of Americans don't want to put up with the blue bloods...", that's a remarkable statement for a potential candidate of the blue blood party. She could...potentially, split her party.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Why do you hate to say it? That's just basic common sense.

You'd have to be a complete fucking moron to vote for someone like that...which means we can count on about half the GOP doing precisely that.

Everyone with a brain knew that she started her "2012 campaign" back in 2008 when it was apparent that McCain wasn't going to win the election. That's why she "went rogue". It's only a matter of time before she announces that she's officially running and I'm sure she'll claim she's "doing it for the people" as well.

But HG nailed it on the head. Even though the majority of people in this country don't think she would make an effective president, we can count on about half the GOP voting for her if she does get the nomination. That says a lot about how screwed our nation is right now.

I'm afraid you are overestimating the power of the Fox News Party (formerly known as the Republican Party). If Palin runs, I'm afraid a majority of Americans are stupid enough to vote for her...in the giant electoral states: Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan....in the rest of the middle west (Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri...), mountain states (Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Arizona...), in smaller states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Delaware and in the south: Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana. The only states where she might have a problem are California (but even this is suspect), New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Illinois, Maryland, maybe Oregon, maybe Washington. She may even have some trouble in the most progressive of the southern states, North Carolina and Virginia --but it'll be a stretch.

The Fox News Party's goal is to destroy progressives and the Democratic Party. They are well on their way to accomplishing this task. Sorry to be so gloomly but I'm shocked to hear people reguritate the Right-wing lies they hear/read on a daily basis...and am convinced, as is Paul Krugman said in his editorial today in the NY Times, that this country is in serious trouble and under real threat from the Lunatic Right.

The Fox News Party has taken a page directly out of the pages of Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels and Americans, never very good at history, are falling for it.

Hitler himself outlined the Nazi's use of propaganda to "take over" Germany even though, up to that time and even for several years after, a majority of Germans didn't / couldn't believe that the evil that was ultimately manifested could actually become implanted in their nation. Nazi propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember thinking,"I hope they nominate G.W Bush because the country will never be stupid enought to elect him."

I remember thinking," I hope they nominate Reagan because the country will never be to stupid enough to elect him."

And we all know how those elections turned out.
I've learned to never UNDER estimate this country's electorate's willingness to embrace stupidity.

All of the above - absolutely correct.

Recent polls indicate that about 85% of Republicans view her "favorably".

This, and that fact that we're even having a discussion about the likes of someone like Palin running for president, speaks to how twisted America's political "logic" is right now.

Given what I've seen as of late, I'd say she's practically a "shoe-in".
 

pinspotter10

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Posts
955
Media
0
Likes
1,995
Points
348
Location
Upstate NY (the Southern Tier)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
She won't run. She's got a great gig now with the celebrity circuit and -most importantly - political candidates sucking up to her for her endorsement.

Ghost written books bringing in a mint, ghost written Twitter posts --- she does absolutely no heavy lifting, doesn't have to make any decisions other than which gigs to accept and which to turn down --- life can't get much better for her.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I tend to agree with pinspotter. Who can forget Palin stating bluntly that she much prefers to be out in the wilderness than sitting in long, stuffy meetings. She doesn't strike me as one who has muh of an attention span to do more than bake a couple dozen chocolate chip cookies. Golly, you betcha.
 

D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
788
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
161
I tend to agree with pinspotter. Who can forget Palin stating bluntly that she much prefers to be out in the wilderness than sitting in long, stuffy meetings. She doesn't strike me as one who has muh of an attention span to do more than bake a couple dozen chocolate chip cookies. Golly, you betcha.


the mere fact that she has you turds pissng in moaning says that she indeed could.