Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

FIRST SALVO: SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT 2016

QUOTE OF THE DAY!

Obama a "socialist"

“A very scary proposal was recently revealed by Geithner essentially saying, ‘Let the president have free rein on raising the debt ceiling to whatever level he wants it.’ That’s a very scary thought,” she said, pointing to Obama’s supposedly “socialist” views.

“He believes in socialism, in redistributing, in confiscating hard-earned dollars of our small businessmen and women so that they cannot re-invest their dollars and hire more people and grow and expand,” Palin continued. “Instead he believes in these failed socialist policies. And I say that not to personally condemn our president, but I say it because I face reality, and I see what’s going on, and I see the path that we are on and the fact that Barack Obama has not had a budget in the four years that he’s been in office and not been worried about it and continues to spend recklessly other people’s money. And that is a sign of that idea of loving socialism.”
Editor's comment - Be nice if our dweeby mish-mosh Republican leaders would speak as clearly as our gal Sarah. Hint, hint, John Boehner.

50 comments:

Rita said...

Geez. I dunno. She's still getting attacked by the MSMs. As well as her family.

Eric Dondero said...

Democrats have an extreme advantage with voter fraud. Republicans just don't do it. Dems revel in fraud.

We cannot win. We might as well go down swinging with Sarah!

electromag.11 said...

Palin getting GOP nomination in 2016 = Democratic White House through 2020

The Right Guy said...

If she wants to run, she can and she'd have to get through the primaries first. What the lefties here don't remember is that they will have primaries in 2016 too.

Mr. Mcgranor said...

Good idea... run the quitter. There's a compromise for their 'moderate' concerns.

Gary said...

Please. Palin is yesterday's stale bread.

The Right Guy said...

Yeah and everyone else that ran was fresh fruit for rotting vegetables.

The Right Guy said...

A couple things whatever your name is, remember 2000? Remember how down and out you were? Fortunes change and sometime faster than you thought. What goes around comes around.

Kc Lion said...

Yes! The GOP needs to take the Palin cure.

No more moderate Democrat-Lite candidates.

A Republican with the Libertarian credentials like Sarah is just what we need.

The Right Guy said...

Palin has been so marginalized by the MSM that she'll never be elected dog catcher. I would love to see BO or any other dem get the colonoscopy she got.

mitsukurina said...

The problem with Palin is that she is deeply, deeply stupid.

The Right Guy said...

She's a mensa member compared to Joe Biden.

The Right Guy said...

And the media did ravage her. Can you imagine a democrat woman being asked the questions she was or treated that way? NOW would be up in arms. Then again NOW picks easy targets. You never see them protest how women are treated in and muslim world.

mitsukurina said...

Biden's an ape; but she's even stupider. I'd rather take Condi Rice as an example of lefty media hypocrisy: an intelligent, competent black woman portrayed in cartoons in deeply sexist, deeply racist ways.

The Right Guy said...

Considering Palin's success, she can't be as stupid as you make her out to be. It is sort of the same kind of envy progressives have for the rich. It's envy alright and it's because they don't understand what it takes to succeed.

mitsukurina said...

She sure is a successful media personality I agree. Do you think all media personalities are therefore intelligent? Most of them are rather to the left no? Perhaps Roseanne Barr has a big brain too? To suggest otherwise would surely be "envy".

ajnock1976 said...

Democrats dream ticket for 2016: Palin-West.

A failed one-term Congressman won't win anything.

A failed Veep candidate who quit halfway thru her governorship won't be nominated.

A former House Speaker thrown out of office by his fellow Republicans won't be nominated.

A former blue-state Senator who failed to be re-elected 2:1 won't be nominated.

This eliminates: West, Palin, Gingrich & Santorum.

Remember we have 2014 to get thru & take back the Senate. We lost the Senate w/poor showings in four states we otherwise should have won [ND, MT, WI & VA] w/effort on the base; should have won if we'd nominated someone less moronic [MO & IN] & had a plausible campaign [FL].

yours truly

Alan Turin

mitsukurina said...

As for Palin's political successes, they are tiny: failed veep (in the company therefore of Geraldine Ferraro) and quitter as the governor of a tiny state. Biden -- who we agree is stupid -- has had far greater success hasn't he: long time senator and 2 term veep?

The Right Guy said...

The are idiots in the media, but considering she became governor of a state, I'd say she's not one of them. Roseann Barr is just batshit crazy.

mitsukurina said...

So idiots can't become governors? I live in California and I would say that we have certainly had a few idiots as governors.

The Right Guy said...

I don't think it will be any of them either, Alan. Right now we are in the dark tunnel and it'll be a little while before we get some clarity. I would add Christie to the pile of nevers, as he's proven to be a sfacime. It seems to me the deck has cleared a bit. Rubio? May be. I think it'll have to be someone that hasn't been trashed or exposed yet. Kind like Obama in that sense...I do hope Hillary goes for the mayoralty of NYC. That will keep her busy for awhile.

The Right Guy said...

There are idiots and then there are those that are just wrong.

mitsukurina said...

Kathleen Blanco? I would say that she is an idiot too.

The Right Guy said...

Nicky Hailey may be or Susanna Martinez. Neither are idiots.

mitsukurina said...

I think Nicky Hailey is pretty great; as for Martinez, I like her but don't know a great deal about her.

mitsukurina said...

or rather: I like what I hear so far but don't know a great deal about her.

The Right Guy said...

And no more Bush's.

The Right Guy said...

Or Clintons.

Gary said...

Rubio 2016.

mitsukurina said...

Billary will likely be too old by 2016 I think.

Ran / SVP said...

Given Turin's propensity for failure to tell the truth, I'd say that the Palin/West ticket stands a decent chance.

(Not that Turin is an out-and-out liar, mind. Lying requires some basis in reality from which to stray and at least a decent average intelligence. Sad when you think about it.)

That said, I'm looking for a streak of arrogance or unflappable confidence in Palin that she hasn't exhibited. Probably there - one does not marry a tough dude like Todd and remain a wussette.

(West, though, in a heartbeat. Turin's cluster-friends in the Man-lite RINO brigade in FL did their damnedest to have West redistricted out of play. Then Turin has the beans to call West "failed." Uh-huh.)

In any case, methinks Palin has a even stronger card to play, if only she'd listen to Breitbart: Sarah has the potential to be the Right's Oprah. She could be more powerful than Limbaugh if she wanted.

Jemas said...

Well I'm an Alaskan, born and raised, and I was working on a Senate race in Anchorage when Palin was a Vice President candidate so I'd like to share a few thoughts:

Speaking as a liberal, please run Palin. Not only will it give the Daily Show material for the entire election cycle, it will show how shallow and worthless your ideas are quickly becoming. Palin running, and the resulting debacle, would probably be a blow from which the conservative and libertarian movements would never recover.

For clarification, Palin is probably the least substantive politician in history. Yes, all politicians are image obsessed, but Palin is something different. She is all image, not an ounce of substance. Go read the transcript of her debate with Biden. She doesn't answer a single question the moderator asks. Her resignation speeches (she needed 2, let's recall) are essentially incoherent, to the point where William Shatner reading them as Beat Poetry didn't sound at all weird. She is worse than any politician of our lifetime, something singularly awful that would make even Richard Nixon cringe.

She also has this strange immunity to facts and reality, as do many of her supporters. Take for example, her claim that the government is 'too big' and that she supports small government (said notably in her convention speech, so I don't need to cite it). Her biggest legacy, to Wasilla, was a 15 million dollar Hockey Rink for a town with an annual (ANNUAL) budget of 20 million. This is not me making stuff up or trusting the Mainstream Media (horrors). I lived in Alaska and my father still resides there, so I know many of these things from residents.

As a candidate she's even worse, as she can barely string two sentences together under pressure unless they are viciously rehearsed (again, see her debate and her stubborn refusal to answer any of the questions she was asked). Her facts are, at best, woefully under-researched (You can see Russia from Alaska...that is if you go out to a remote uninhabited island that technically belongs to Alaska, you can see a remote uninhabited island that technically belongs to Russia) and at worst outright lies (too many to cite).

I urge you, and anyone, to read Matt Taibbi's excellent article on Palin from the Convention floor, Mad Dog Palin. It states, in frank and occasionally vicious terms, what is wrong with Palin. The link is below:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mad-dog-palin-20100405


So in conclusion, please run Palin. Not just because it would ensure a victory to whoever runs against her (who would have to be an outright fascist to be worse than her; I would vote for Romney and GW Bush, much less McCain or HW Bush, over her) but because it would expose, for all to see, everything wrong with the Libertarian and Conservative movements, to the point where they would likely never recover. And then, when the Republicans rebuild themselves into something more intelligent and useful, maybe we could move America into the future.

Oh and Eric, just as an aside, you and this site's continual arguing that you lost through voter fraud is quite frankly adorable and a little sad. It puts me in mind of someone I played Warhammer with who, after losing, spent 45 minutes checking to make sure none of my dice were loaded (they were not). It's not possible that I played better, or he played worse. Nope, I must have cheated.

James
Queens, New York, NY

Rational Nation USA said...

Sarah jumps in at least it will be amusing.

Les...

Eric Dondero said...

Alan, problem is we are never going to win again no matter what we do.

Liberal media can't be beat.

Plus massive voter fraud by Democrats.

Unless we match the Dem voter fraud machine, there's no hope.

So, why not go down swinging with Palin/West. Either that or secession or plain out civil war.

Eric Dondero said...

James, what you don't seem to understand is that some of us no longer care about "winning." If we can't win with a perfect candidate like Romney, we are never going to win.

The Democrat voter fraud machine is too powerful. We cannot overcome it.

We run Palin, lay it all out for moocher blue state America. She loses. Then red state America secedes. That's our only option at this point.

Eric Dondero said...

If you deny Democrat voter fraud you're a fucking idiot. It's a fact of life.

There's nothing we can do to overcome it. It's hopeless for Republicans, unless we Republicans all of a sudden switch and become no morals vote fraudsters like the Democrats.

We Republicans will never do this, thus we are always going to lose.

jgeleff said...

"For clarification, Palin is probably the least substantive politician in history. Yes, all politicians are image obsessed, but Palin is something different. She is all image, not an ounce of substance."

Apparently you've never heard of this vapid guy named Obama.

ajnock1976 said...

Eric you now counsel defeat & surrender?

Main-stream media is so leftist that we can't cut a break? Except the main-stream media is dying.

You've never explained to us how we won so much in 2010?

Ran: I was the one who posted about the GOP doing in West here.

I also pointed out the GOP nationally in the Senate campaign group endorsed Charlie Crist over Rubio. Now Crist's name is mud among Republicans here.

yours for sanity

Alan Turin

PS

The 2016 GOP will not nominate Palin, Gingrich, Santorum or West. There are lot's of possibles. Consider that in 2004 Barack Obama was a federal senate CANDIDATE.

ART

Ran / SVP said...

Thanks for the humor, Jemas.

I though Sarah's playing by her own rules and ignoring the media's bate in her "debates" with Biden rather played to her substance and street-smarts. Palin just ran over 'em. One can understand their vitriol.

Now we understand that the public schools in Alaska ssssuck - so the fact that you missed the obvious ought not be held against you in full. Jeez Louise! It's one thing to be blind to subtlety, but do make an attempt to see what is before you.

Taibbi, for example. Angry. Intimidated; grasping. "H8er." Is there a less respected or less credible source for comment on Palin? Perhaps Andy Sullivan. Rachel Mad Cow? Maybe. Using a freaking Rolling Stone article as back-up... 'spose it felt good at the time, but "Naw." (Don't forget to wipe-up and have a cigarette after.)

One last thing: PLEASE don't recycle old leftie yakking points on Palin. Please? Boring. I know you lefties are into "green" and "recycling" and "redistributing" the products of other people's work, but around here one earns cred for originality.

Ran / SVP said...

You want a hero cookie, Turin? Don't pretend you supported West.

And the point stands: Your wussie RINO pals in Florida redistricted him. Despite it he came damned close into recounts. It was underhanded and shameful...

...and it is patently cowardly of you to call him "defeated" when you're aware of the facts. Shame on you, too Alan.

Rational Nation USA said...

Won with Ike, won with Reagan, even won even with Tricky Dick. What was perfect about Romney?

Jemas said...

Wow, so much to cover so little time. I was attempting to be polite, but since there's no civility in your responses, I shall act similarly.

Okay so let's start with Eric. You say again, that Democratic voter fraud is a fact of life but it's not. Based on the 2000 Florida debacle, conservative run companies buying and manufacturing voting machines, attempts at voter intimidation from Republican lawmakers by decreasing early voting days, lowering voting hours and trying to enforce ridiculous voter ID laws, it would seem your side has the corner on the market of voter fraud, not mine. But then, I'm basing my observations on reality and you are...let's say not.

Again I ask you to apply Occam's Razor to these things. Which is more likely: That the Obama administration ran a ridiculously complicated voter fraud machine, despite insane oversight from the media and Republicans, requiring hundreds or thousands of people working in perfect synch without anyone noticing or coming up with concrete evidence? OR that Mitt Romney was a poor candidate, with across the board losing policies, a complete inability to come across as relatable human being and a campaign that was crippled from the get go by the vicious internal primary?

And your comments about Secession are quite frankly insane. You're going to break off from the union, why? Because you lost a couple elections? It's like that Thomas Jefferson quote: "When your liberty is threatened by losing an election, you must act like whiny children, throw a tantrum and try to drag the country back to the third world."

And Ran. You might be even more hilarious than Eric. Yes, Eric is a ridiculously ignorant fool, but at least he wears his ignorance on his sleeves. You hide it behind condescension and pretending to be smart. So let me respond briefly:

For the record, I went to High School in Connecticut (hence why I live in New York City now) but hey, you ignore all of the rest of reality, why not ignore the facts of my life?

Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone (as well as Rachel Maddow) are perfectly legitimate sources, easily more legit than any source this website regularly cites. They may be biased (as any human being will be) but at least they conform to objective reality, which is more than I can say for Faux News or most of your crap. And the fact that your first attempt to discredit me is to attack the source and include a rather disgusting verbal attack (rather than you know, address any of my points) proves how weak your position is. But I suppose if you could back it up with facts you'd do that, and since you don't...

And for the record, Rolling Stone is legitimate news magazine. If nothing else, it once employed Hunter S. Thompson, a personal hero and one of the most important journalists who ever lived. I'd urge you to read some of his writings, like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or Hell's Angels, but I imagine being shown how incredibly wrong you are so clearly and bluntly might cause your brain to explode.

Continued Below

James
Queens, New York, NY

Jemas said...

Continued

And the reason we only have the same points about Palin is because since the Vice Presidential campaign she has done, I believe the technical term is 'jack shit.' Lest ye forget, she spent a little time as governor, ran for Vice President where she was the final nail in the coffin of a hilariously terrible campaign with an election that amounted to a shut out. Then she returned to her governorship where she promptly...quit, giving rambling incoherent reasons, and spent the rest of her time releasing books that are so full of bullshit I can't believe they don't stink up the bookstores and hanging around Faux News where no one will call her out on her bullshit. Where are we supposed to get new talking points when she hasn't done anything? I guess I could point out that on her show she acted like a tourist on Sarah Palin's Alaska, but that's just petty.

Again, I urge you to actually look up her policies and compare them to what she says. Failing to respond to a question during a DEBATE (IE, an event devoted to answering questions and debating your opponent) does not indicate that you have street smarts. It indicates that she was incoherently awful in her interviews (and she was) that they decided not to risk her trying to actually answer the questions. They just said to her "Here are these talking points, do not deviate from them." You claim I'm missing what's right in front of me because the Alaska school system sucks, but you're the one willfully ignoring reality and refusing to acknowledge any other perspective than yours. People in glass houses eh?

So again, run Palin. Not only will it guarantee another victory for whoever runs against her, it will continue the complete marginalization you and your opinions, through your own hypocrisy and ignorance. It might finally cause the intelligent people on your side to split off from you, because your voices are dragging them down. So run her, she will, through no fault of her own, cause the American political discourse to get better.

James
Queens, New York, NY

The Right Guy said...

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Jemas said...

Yeah, but I'm not trying to be funny.

James
Queens, New York, NY

The Right Guy said...

Wit: mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence : he does not lack perception or native wit.

Are you related to DC Trebil/

Jemas said...

No, and I don't know who that is. My google search of the name yielded nothing.

But since your complaint appears to be about how wordy I am (and lord knows that being long winded makes your point invalid. I mean that's why Lord of the Rings, Les Miserables, Ala Recherche Du Temps Perdu and fucking Atlas Shrugged are not considered classic literature at all) I'll try to boil myself down into a few key points.

Mitt Romney lost because he was a terrible candidate. Palin is a worse candidate who's inevitable defeat would permanently cripple your movement. And your quibbling over details, rather than responding to my points, is only making your position appear weaker. Which admittedly is helping my position of trying to convince other people who might be reading this to seek out other voices who's ideas are more valid (as the people running this blog are beyond logic and reason). So uh...thanks I guess.

Brief enough for you?

James
Queens, New York, NY

The Right Guy said...

Palin isn't a candidate and probably will not be one. The best that will happen out of this is that there may be some creative destruction, hopefully more so than in 2010. History evolves at longer intervals than 4 years and this play isn't over yet. At least I have a front seat.

The Right Guy said...

It's DC Treybill and he was a wordy bastard too. Pure sominex.

Jemas said...

I like being wordy. It gives me time to explain my point and think about what I'm saying, as I say it. And as I said earlier, if you have problems with wordiness, you should probably take down that picture of Ayn Rand, as she could prattle on for pages and pages. Her biggest novel, Atlas Shrugged, has a word count of 645,000 or roughly 10 times the word count of one of my favorite books, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or over 100,000 words longer than Les Miserables, a novel that is ridiculously padded (Victor Hugo was being paid by the word). Or roughly twice as a long as the ENTIRE Lord of the Rings trilogy. Brevity is the soul of wit indeed.

None of that addresses my points about Palin (or Romney. Or the 'Electoral fraud). In fact your response was more than a little confusing to read...I'm not entirely positive what point you're trying to get across. But you weren't the one defending Palin or claiming voter fraud or insulting me, so I'll let you off the hook. And concede that you are correct; Palin is not a candidate as of right now (with 4 years to go till the election) and for the sake of your movement, you should pray she never is.

James
Queens, New York, NY