-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 59 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
-
From Bimbos to Benghazi
May 9, 2013 | 162 comments
Political Hay
Palin Ponders Third Party Paradox
Hannity interview highlights lure of historical failure — and success.
It is always an abysmal failure.
While being a spectacular success.
It has never elected a President of the United States.
It has elected some of history’s most important Presidents of the United States.
How can this be?
The Third Party — being murmured recently to Sean Hannity by both former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (“I don’t foresee that right now” she said, refusing to permanently rule out the idea) and Donald Trump (who dissed unnamed Republican candidates to Hannity as “stiffs”) is a powerful lure. For all the wrong reasons and all the right ones. (The Palin-Hannity interviews are here, here and here.)
Let’s start with a hard, cold historical fact.
No Third Party — by which me mean any party other than Republicans and Democrats — in all of American history has ever elected a president. The Republican Party was, at its founding in 1854, arguably a third party. But the power of the slavery issue was such that in short order it replaced the fledgling and philosophically shaky Whig Party, drawing into its center of political gravity millions of similarly inclined anti-slavery, pro-capitalist views. The Whigs vanished from the American scene altogether, as had the Federalist Party before it.
Both Federalists and Whigs were false starts at the very beginning of the American republic as the nation’s politics evolved into the American two-party system composed of Democrats and Republicans. Once that system had evolved, millions of followers across the country swelled the ranks of each. Party machinery was set up. Grassroots organization flexed its power, literally from bottom to top — from every house to the party club house to the state house to the White House partisans of the two were and are today everywhere.
In the 39 presidential elections that have been held since 1856 — the first time a Republican and Democrat faced off for the presidency with a contest between the GOP’s John Charles Fremont and the Democrats’ James Buchanan — only a Republican or Democrat has emerged victorious. No Whigs, no Federalists, no nominee of any other party has ever been elected president.
And there have been lots of other parties — or, as is said in the vernacular, “third parties.”
A partial list would include:
• The American Party (or “the
Know-Nothings”)
• The
Southern Democrat Party
•
The Constitutional Union Party
• The Greenback Party
• The Prohibition
Party
• The Union
Labor Party
• The
Populist Party
• The
Socialist Party
• The
Farmer-Labor Party
•
The Progressive Party (or the “Bull Moose
Party”)
• The
Communist Party
• The
Union Party
• The
Constitution Party
•
The Socialist-Labor Party
• The Socialist-Workers
Party
• The American
Independent Party
•
The People’s Party
•
The Libertarian Party
• The Independent
Party
• The Reform
Party
And there’s more on the list!
In each case these parties fielded presidential candidates to challenge the GOP and the Democrats. Whether those candidates were running on platforms that were seen in the day as Right, Left or Center they always — always — lost.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (130) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/07/palin-ponders-third-party-para
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Consternated Conferences
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 6.7.11 @ 6:36AM
If they had any nuggets, We'd have to say that Palin has The GOP Ruling Elite Fops by them.
We Tea Party Patriots are gonna purge The GOP in 2012, with The Second Wave.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 7:13AM
I want Obama to win next year, but would vote for Palin in '16, if she'd ditch those granny glasses; she's a "10", she makes Bo Derek look like a girl scout-- can't she have lasik done?
Dan Hirsch| 6.7.11 @ 7:28AM
Alan;
Has not BHO already made it clear that he intends to serve 10 years and then quit as President? So get ready for a constitutional amendment and his third election in 2016. In 2018 he might let Mrs. Palin run...
Pay attention to your man, man!
knucklehead....
Kreinke Weibchen| 6.7.11 @ 8:36AM
Sorry, Alan, she's too old for you.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 9:39AM
Say what you want, at this time the Divine Ms. Sarah is not ready to be POTUS.
So you'll have to wait five years to nominate her, third party or no. Patience is a virtue, guys.
SonOfSam| 6.7.11 @ 9:45AM
Say what you want alan, but Obama is not ready to be POTUS. And we the people are not going to wait five years to replace this clueless asshole.
You and your TelePrompter in Chief are going in flames, you tax-fattened hyena.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 9:56AM
No, you will keep running statist dynasticists such as the Bushes for POTUS; and whited sepulchres like Dole and McCain.
You have met the enemy and the enemy is you.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 10:07AM
...however in 2016 or 2020 you might not bungle it as you have done since 1996-- 15 years (or if you count Bush 41 that is an entire two decades you have wasted); so Palin does have a chance in the LONG RUN.
no one put a gun to your head and forced you to run McCain three years ago-- it was a bad choice YOU made; worse, you have been making the same mistake for a very long time now, running mediocrities for POTUS and thinking if you keep making the same mistake over and over again that 'next time' the outcome will be different.
Or if you count Bush 41 that is an entire two decades you have wasted.
Patience is a virtue.
simon templar| 6.7.11 @ 10:37AM
Alan, I really do think you are being influenced by your trolling out here. Man, now you are using words like statist, nailing it on the head about Bush and McCain as not being true conservatives, and admitting that Palin is a force to be reckoned with even if you do not really like her or her views. You better be careful, one day you are going to wake up and realize you are a conservative and start getting a warm feeling for Ann Coulter, if you know what I mean!
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 10:45AM
"and admitting that Palin is a force to be reckoned with"
Of course Palin is- but she wont be up to speed as a POTUS candidate until 2016. Remember how many years-- decades-- it took Thatcher to become PM?
SpiralArchitect| 6.7.11 @ 12:00PM
Brooks, you come accross as such a dolt. Obummer rules as a king, as though it is his right - Divine Right.
You two are both ingorant boobs.
Could you please expand on any issue(s) you find have resulted in a positive as result of Obummer?
Thanks.
Alky| 6.8.11 @ 12:44AM
Maybe it was all you whacked out libs that voted in the republican primaries and got McCain nominated! It's not hard to notice you libs aren't whining about Romney like you do about Palin. Kinda makes me wonder if they don't stop the liberals voting in republican primaries that that's all the GOP will ever get is milk toast RINO's.
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 10:03AM
Alan, Come on man. The glasses are key. It's the whole smokin hot librarian look.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 10:10AM
Yes; the ones who work in libraries, but voters don't make passes at female politicians who wear glasses.
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 10:39AM
Alan, I really hate to break it to you buddy but the GOP could nominate Spanky from the Little Rascals & he beats Obama. The novelty has worn way off the Hope & Change train.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 10:47AM
Still, you will blow it again. the Cold War was your shining moment- your last gasp.
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 11:16AM
I honestly hope Palin runs. #1: She is the best candidate the GOP has. #2: She absolutely demolishes Obama in a debate that is not scripted. He will come unhinged.#3: The satisfaction of watching the regeneration of American exceptionalism with Palin as President & witnessing the media meltdown will be just so much fun. These phonies & Progressives will absolutely go insane.
SpiralArchitect| 6.7.11 @ 12:07PM
A lot of non-Libs dislike here too.
Don't be fooled.
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 12:37PM
Spiral, Sure. the jealous, catty, talk about your pals behind their back females who despise any woman who looks better than they do. You can have em.
Stormzeye| 6.7.11 @ 12:12PM
Alan,
I can't take your ranting about weak Republican candidates any more!
Dukakis rather than Bush...are you kidding? He'd still be waiting for UN sanctions to make Saddam to pull out of Kuwait.
Gore rather than Bush II...are you nuts?
Jean-Francois Kerry instead of Bush Redux...we'd be in the EU by now!
Old war heroes like Dole, McCain and Eisenhower have always touched the hearts of Relpublicans and they all were better Presidential material than Clinton, Obama or Stevenson.
Seek| 6.7.11 @ 3:49PM
Sarah Palin, a genuine ignoramus, has a style of governance and public communication wholly unsuited to the presidency. We conservatives need to look elsewhere. If Palin wants to run a third-party candidacy, let her be my guest: She'll get at most 10 to 12 percent of the popular vote -- and no electoral college votes.
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 4:10PM
Seek, Nice try. Save it for another site where your lame effort may go unchecked. " We conservatives?" Really? Go ahead & list for me your conservative fundamental beliefs & then tell me where Palin is off track on those. I will wait while the crickets chirp.
Stormzeye| 6.7.11 @ 9:48PM
Good catch Steve!
amy| 6.8.11 @ 1:01AM
Republicans can re-elected Obama with Palin or Pawlenty. Let's not do that, okay?
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 3:58PM
She only has them if they value their country more than they value their power.
Our problem is there is not two parties, there is the liberal progressives lead by Obama, and the conservative progressives who run the republican establishment. The way it is now, THEY CAN'T LOSE. Don't like Obama, well the R's will give you a choice of a little more conservative model of a big government republican who will do NOTHING to roll back the Obama agenda or restore our country to the constitution.
Self proclaimed conservatives are 40% of the voters in this country. WHO represents them? Why is the largest block of voters not represented?
I have no qualms of voting for a third party CONSERVATIVE, IF the republicans refuse to support a REAL conservative candidate. If the republican establishment values keeping THEIR power over the destruction of this country, THEY are as big a problem as Obama, and must also be defeated. Conservatives need to acknowledge this and accept that these RINO republicans have done as much destruction to our country and constitution as the democrats, maybe more! The only way to defeat them is to deny their RINO candidate and then lay the blame on the established republicans to oust them from their control of the party.
I think they know that Obama is going to be defeated, and intend to capitalize on this by seeing a RINO stiff is the nominee. If so, I think all TEA party voters should then vote third party and deny the RINO the presidency. It won't be as bad as you think, as I predict the TEA party is going to elect many more R's and take control of both houses, so even if Obama is left in they will emasculate him. This would mean gridlock, BUT would allow the TEA party to purge the progressive republicans as leaders of the party and then elect a REAL conservative in 2016 who would then roll back all progressive agenda and return our country to our constitution. The progressives didn't' lie themselves into power in only one election cycle, and we constitutional conservatives should not think we are lost if we don't take back the white house in one election cycle. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RESTORE OUR COUNTRY BY CONTINUING TO ELECT RINO REPUBLICANS, THIS NEEDS TO STOP RIGHT NOW.
NVA Patriot| 6.7.11 @ 6:46AM
I believe the reason she said that was to put the establishment on notice that if she makes a run for President, she wants a fair shot and no dirty dealing from the establishment. They covet their power and perks as much as the Dems do.
Sarah's 3rd party conversation point was likely aimed at the transactional power brokers who run to whichever side looks like it's winning - left/right doesn't matter so long as I get mine.
The message she sent was for those who seek power for its own sake, if you attack me (or my family) I will deprive you of your power. She’s practicing a little power politics letting the transactional people know that they need to be very careful. She knows these sorts of people because of how the McCain campaign treated her.
And for those who will say it's about the country why would Sarah do that - right back to you - why did not the power brokers in the establishment help Christine O in DE when Mike Castle was beaten - where was the concern for the country then? Or why didn't the establishment get behind a Tea Party candidate in Il? It took Tea Party effort to bring down the faker in FL and give us Rubio, same in TN over the establishment pick. Or, how about all the attempts to blame Sarah for Johnny M's loss? See – two can play the take-one-for-the-team-and-save-the-country card…
B-b-but Reagan never went 3rd party – very true.
Reagan did not have the Tea Party card to play when he made his run and the Dem Party was not as outright socialist then as it is today. Reagan needed the Party to help attract the Reagan Democrats who took him over the line – not establishment Republicans (Like George Will) who despised Reagan in the beginning. Sarah is playing her cards. Tea Party Leaders can get up and say we’re not going third party all day. Mark this – if the establishment does one of the Tea Party favorites wrong – Tea Party Leaders will find themselves alone if they back the establishment survivor in a dirty primary process to select Obama’s opponent. If the Primary is clean and there are no establishment dirty tricks then I believe the Republican Primary will determine the next President.
Gary| 6.7.11 @ 7:23AM
NVA Patriot’s analysis is spot on. Palin wields significant power. She, alone, can kill the momentum of any establishment GOP candidate, should the primary process turn dirty, as he says.
But she, too, must be careful because she may never have as much power as she does this election cycle. If she misjudges the situation, or if the GOP insiders get the best of her, her influence will fade as the enemedia piles on.
Needless to say, there are tricky times, much like our founding and, just as back then, luck will play a roll.
NVA Patriot| 6.7.11 @ 8:08AM
Thanks Gary - but it's not luck - Providence - America is still mankind's last best hope for liberty -
Gary| 6.8.11 @ 7:20AM
You're right. I stand corrected.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:04PM
The primary system is a "stacked deck" to elect liberals. Why should liberal states select the republican candidate? Maybe ALL states need to have the primary on the same day? Just saying, in Florida the democrats didn't get to vote in the primary, so they registered as republicans and independents and crossed over to select the weakest candidate for the republicans. Do you think this primary system is fair?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.7.11 @ 7:00AM
If you look at the state of the Republican Party, it has no real leader.
Few of them want to change course, they like big government. It's only a question of which type of big government.
Even Paul Ryan's plan was about bigger government. The item the left feared was the Medicare vouchers because that leads to individualism and independent thought.
Big government types can't afford that in terms of holding onto power.
Sarah Palin could level the field for the same reason Trump did. She's different.
She's precisely the right package at precisely the right moment. The media senses this and that's precisely why they hate and despise her.
Bill A | 6.7.11 @ 8:48AM
jd, you are not alone. I still can't believe I voted for John McCain who I detest as a politician, but I did. I guess you could say that speaks volumes to what I think of President Obama.
If there is a good thing about an Obama presidency, it is the political education of a lot of unenlightened voters in our great country.
Hopefully they will act accordingly in Nov, 2012.
Rick V.| 6.7.11 @ 9:16AM
Bill - John McCain was not the first Republican I voted for while holding my nose, but there was no Republican alternative after the primaries (thanks, RNC!), refusing to vote was not an option and I'll never vote for a Democrat. Now that he's got that whole Viagra thing working, maybe we can nominate Bob Dole. Surely the Republicans can come up with another embarrassing candidate.
SonOfSam| 6.7.11 @ 9:48AM
Say there Rick, let's recall that the reason we got stuck with McCain was that Romney was such an overgrown Ken doll -- all plastic and no balls -- that he folded before April. We better make DAMNED sure that this friggin RINO doesn't hi-jack the party
Bill A | 6.7.11 @ 5:25PM
Rick, you are correct. I felt the same about Dole in '96 as I did aboutKerry in '04. If these were the best either party had to offer, they deserved to lose.My first vote was for Nixon in '72 and I have yet to vote for a Democrat for President. I can't say I have been overly excited about who I was voting for. Like many, I did not understand the importance of Reagan until after his presidency.
For 2012 I am only sure of one thing, Obama has to go.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:09PM
This attitude is what the progressive establishment republicans are counting on to continue to select their big government candidates that are slowly taking this country the same direction that Obama is doing quickly. Do you want a rule of the ultra-rich oligarchy? Just continue to vote against or for the lesser of two evils and you will always get ONE of the evils.
Time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, and vote FOR someone you can be enthusiastic about. Go Sarah.
Kelly Staples| 6.7.11 @ 7:18AM
Capt. Crybaby gets to hit the links with his new hero. Whoppee. . . . but the Tea Party had something more in mind. If Sarah goes rogue, count me in.
Dan Hirsch| 6.7.11 @ 7:38AM
Kelly;
The optics of the Obama-Boehner golf date was so bad that I lost almost all respect for the Speaker.
Playing golf with BHO while our economy tanks!?
C'mon, John, you can do a lot better.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.7.11 @ 7:48AM
Unlike Palin there is a real conservative in the race who is putting forward substantive conservative ideas to reverse the destruction Obama has wrought in the American economy. His name is Tim Pawlenty.
Pawlenty is not as flashy as Palin or egocentric, but he's putting forward real ideas to rejuvenate and reform America into a conservative bastion of freedom and prosperity. Some bullet points that are going to be in his economic speech:
- On corporate taxes: “We should cut the business tax rate by more than half. I propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%. But our policies can’t just be about simply cutting rates … The tax code is littered with special interest handouts, carve-outs, subsidies, and loopholes that should be eliminated.”
- On individual taxes: “On the individual rates we need a simpler, fairer flatter tax system overall. I propose just two rates: 10% and 25%. Under my plan, those who currently pay no income tax would stay at a zero rate. After that, the first $50,000 of income – or $100,000 for married couples – would be taxed at 10 percent … In addition, we should eliminate altogether the capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax, and the death tax.”
- On deficit reduction: “I propose that Congress grant the President the temporary and emergency authority to freeze spending at current levels, and impound up to 5% of Federal spending until such time as the budget is balanced. If they won’t do it…I will. As an example, cutting even 1% of overall federal spending for six consecutive years would balance the federal budget by 2017.”
NVA Patriot| 6.7.11 @ 8:22AM
You are not helping your candidate by implying that Sarah is not a real conservative. You're ignoring her impact on the health care debate where she coined the phrase Death Panel which completely changed the Obamacare dynamic.
Tim can point to no such success. Nor has Tim had the media tear him apart - can he stand it? We'll see. Sarah has emerged from that fire stronger - Paraphrasing a great line from a Julia Roberts Movie, "Who's chasing Tim?" For someone who's an idiot she sure seems to have learned to make the media look stupid. Tim will have to develop that skill, or show he has it.
Disparaging Sarah Palin (or any other candidate on the R side) is a fast way to the bottom - if you doubt that, talk to Newt.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.7.11 @ 9:46AM
I’m not settled on Pawlenty (still like Cain and Santorum of those running), but I'm impressed by his honesty (even acknowledging where he was wrong) and the policies he’s putting forward are things many conservatives have been calling for since Jack Kemp was helping shape the nascent conservative agenda in the late 70’s. He also seems to be a real alternative to Romney.
True Pawlenty is not as telegenic as Palin, but unlike her he was a successful conservative two-term Governor – so successful he was reelected during a time of Democrat ascendancy. Pawlenty also has a proven conservative record of competence that stands in sharp contrast to the failed Obama.
While Sarah’s sound bites and zingers are impressive I’m still wondering how she’ll govern considering her resume? If we want a personality that can compete with Obama’s then Sarah Palin would be someone to seriously consider, but after 4 years of Obama America may want and need a Calvin Coolidge.
Her schmoozing Trump, who isn't a conservative, is puzzling (I did like his hectoring Obama). Even more troubling is her talk of a third party. Does she want to make life easier for Obama in 2012? If Pawlenty doesn’t get the nomination he’ll work with our candidate to defeat Obama and the Democrats. What is Sarah Palin going to do?
If she does throw her hat in the ring and wins the GOP nomination I’m going to support her just like I did Bob Dole and John McCain. I may not like “anointed candidates” in the GOP (Dole, McCain, Palin and Romney), but I prefer them to Obama or any Democrat. Hopefully, this is just Sarah Palin shooting from the hip and making headlines.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:13PM
Right on! I don't know much about Pawlentry, but I do know he was a "global warming" supporter and cap and trade supporter. He should have wised up long before he ever supported cap and trade, which would do NOTHING to help the alleged "warming" problem except steal billions from the USA taxpayers and "redistribute" it elsewhere, making Al Gore and his cronies rich in the process.
TrueBlue| 6.7.11 @ 5:41PM
I wouldn't call Palin egocentric. It's not her fault the media follows her around like a bunch of second rate paparazzi. She's just started to use that recently to screw with them, which is just fine by me.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.7.11 @ 7:55AM
First off, comparing this potential third party to previous attempts is like comparing Bush I to Bush II. Politics is always about context; assuming the parameters of the Perot debacle for anything Palin would invoke is unrealistic. Perot was the champion of the independent; no more or less than distraught yuppies suffering the economic reality of keeping up with the Jones’. Palin has broad support, not the holy grail of exclusive support, but significant support none the less. Her base has, as Perots did, an economic contingent, but unlike the easel eraser of the Republican victory, she has SoCons, Constitutionalist’s, the Rand Regiment, and modified Libertarians such as myself who will put up with the shenanigans of the less tolerant zealots in order to preserve our Republic. Abortion – don’t care, Gay Whatever – don’t care, USA – care.
It may be she enters the race as a Republican but until that time or until she instructs me to, not one penny goes to anyone but her. I trust her; she will not waste my donation. As it is plain for anyone to see she can both earn her own way to fund her candidates, and with her network and assets she can utilize my pittances with both discretion and rational analysis far beyond my capabilities.
There is still and “if” involved here, but Republicans are the most stogy bunch of buffoons on the political scene; the “when” may come and I for one am laying out contingencies. I am tired of hearing, “Whoops, too late, we should have thought of that sooner. There will be no “next time,” cover your bases now.
roadmaster| 6.7.11 @ 8:04AM
Third party would be suicide! There are many decent conservatives in the GOP, but lots of RINO's as well. The conservatives are on the ascendancy, thanks to Palin, and the RINO's are pretty much sinking themselves with their failed policies. They don't want to take the back seat, but that's where we're putting them. First Principles - no more liberal-lite.
NVA Patriot| 6.7.11 @ 8:25AM
Amen - and this post captures perfectly what I am seeing in all the Tea Party Meetings I attend - the RNC has 1 last chance to get this right.
Siegfried X| 6.7.11 @ 10:26AM
The RNC already did their part, setting the rules. For better or worse, the presidential nomination is now in the hands of the candidates and voters.
There is already at least one conservative in the race, Rick Santorum. If he doesn't win, it's because he doesn't get enough votes.
If other conservatives don't enter the race, that's their choice, not the RNC.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:19PM
Doesn't have to be suicide, needs to be about cleaning the progressives and corruption out of the republican party. If they won't change and attempt to destroy the conservative candidates to assure one of their RINO's is the candidate, we need to deny them this option and expose them and their policies and purge them from the party. Like Obama, talk is cheap and actions are louder than words. Obama says one thing and then does the opposite, so do the progressive establishment leaders of the republicans. You BET, going to cut 100 billion from the budget, just support and re-elect me..........
John| 6.7.11 @ 8:52AM
Donald Trump is the only one who could win as a Third party candidate because his pro- American message that we are the laughing stock of the world resonates across the political spectrum. His call to stop rebuilding communist China and to bring back our vital industry from hostile foreign powers is key toward getting us out of this depression-like economy and reducing our persistent high unemployment. If we do this along with lowering taxes (flatter the better), stop the reckless spending and eliminate excessive regulations our country will once again be an economic superpower.
Sarah, along with the rest of the field, are silent on outsourcing America for slave labor so I assume she is for continuing the GOP / Dem suicidal free trade policies that are destroying us.
Trump’s idea to put a 25% import of China imports is a good start and a very conservative policy even though Rush called it a liberal idea. Free trade giveaways, especially to enemy state, are a libertarian idea and really is corporate/government socialism that is a race to the bottom. Our Founders were for tariffs on imported goods in order to protect America’s sovereignty and self-reliance -- and self-reliance is the hallmark of conservatism.
A high school kid can see that a country that no longer makes anything is an economic paper tiger, yet pointy-head economists cannot figure out where the American jobs went.
America is longing for a president who puts America and its citizens first, not last, and so far Donald Trump is the only one championing these patriotic and conservative views.
SpiralArchitect| 6.7.11 @ 12:27PM
Sarah, along with the rest of the field, are silent on outsourcing America for slave labor
Yes, America likes cheaper products. Unions create expensive & often low grade workmanship. Why buy USA especially when it cost substancially more & is LOW GRADE?
TrueBlue| 6.7.11 @ 5:51PM
True, but I'd still rather buy American than Chinese. It's rather silly that their products are taxed hardly at all, while the stuff we send over to them is taxed at ~26%. Tariffs should be equal on both sides of a trade agreement, not the lopsided junk we have now. Companies would come back to the states if they had to pay tariffs to import back stateside.
Though I still think most unions these days are just as bad, if not worse than both political parties, that is a fight for another day. Right now we need our country to actually produce things again, not rely on imports.
Sam Vaughn| 6.7.11 @ 9:18AM
Remember! The so-called power elites in both parties, the people none of us in fly-over country ever see, go to the same parties, dinner's, their children hang out at the same schools. They do not want "outsiders" playing in their sandbox. Dem. and Repub. elites are cut from the same cloth.
T H Huxley| 6.7.11 @ 8:21PM
You hit it out of the park. Members of both parties take lobbyist's money to do the bidding of lobbyists. They don't give a damn about the "little" people. Once out of office, these politicians have high-paying jobs waiting for them if they cast the right votes. The most recent examples are Judd Gregg (R) with Goldman Sachs and Evan Bayh (D) with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Anthony| 6.7.11 @ 10:43AM
Sister Sarah has the Ds and the RINOs right where she wants them. She has played with the corrupt LSM and made total fools of them. All of them, in fact.
Even some of the weak kneed RINOS are beginning to see that this woman has more courage and grace under fire than any R in decades. She has withstood the left's vile attacks and has emerged victorious.
Take off your hats and stand. A real leader has entered the room.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 11:12AM
Third parties can influence the outcome of national elections, think Ross Perot, but cannot gain the electoral vote necessary to win. With the exception of 1860, a four way election which marked the emergence of the Republican party in their second attempt, no major success has followed.
By energizing the debate and focusing the major candidates on significant issues spokesmen, like palin, can influence the direction without actually running themselves. that alone is a valuable contribution to our national life. This year the priority must be winning, not with an Obama lite, but with a principled, Constitutionalist candidate. We must begin to identify that individual and focus our energy and money on the ultimate outcome. There is no substitute for victory this time. Our national existence depends on it.
Mike McCoy | 6.7.11 @ 11:30AM
Sarah Palin is threatening a 3rd party run to frighten RINO senators like Susan Collins, Brown, Snowe and Hatch into behaving like "true conservatives." A 3rd party tea candidate entering any of these senatorial races would certainly split the GOP and give the election to the democrats, but the enemy you know is better than the one you don't.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.7.11 @ 11:54AM
Mike that is a real possibility and if so I hope she succeeds in moving them. The good news is that after last year's elections they have moved to the right (Bronw is the exception, but the Tea Party foolishly misjudged him from the Go).
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 12:11PM
Brown was just a way to kill off a Dem seat. That worked although he is only marginally better. We might remember what state he represents when we think candidates. He actuallly passes for a conservative there in Mass. HMMM.
SpiralArchitect| 6.7.11 @ 12:30PM
Are you frightened by things that have never happened* yet 'could'?
Yea, me neither.
* successful 3rd party POTUS bid.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 12:58PM
Even TR couldn't pull it off and he finished second, but gave us Woodrow Wilson.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.8.11 @ 1:02AM
The Bull Moose Party and Ross Perot are the best illustrations of why a third party run is just plain stupid.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.7.11 @ 12:00PM
Mr. McCoy,
The volatility (new “leader” every week, sometimes more often) may negate all of this. There is no “traction,” there is no inertia, there is no real favorite. If, and all things are “if” at this point, it could play out that no candidate would have enough delegates to outright win the nomination on the first convention ballot.
Our worse enemies, the MSM, in their virulent hate will facilitate this. Their consistent reverse psychology and sabotage could very easily play into our hands. We would reach the convention with no candidate. There would not be a “Republican,” there would not be an “independent” and there would not be a “third party” candidate. Everyone would have even chance, the delegates representing all regions, all factions and all of conservative slant would have an equal and democratic chance to be chosen to represent all. No time distortion, no playing of the MSM to disruptively cull the “favorites (theirs and ours) and most importantly the decision would be within a framework where all could unite for the common goal. This time that goal is not so much to elect a Republican; it is to save the Republic from the progressives.
I for one hope that this scenario plays out.
All American American| 6.7.11 @ 12:45PM
Sorry I couldn't get past this little bit of revisionist history,
"The Republican Party was, at its founding in 1854, arguably a third party. But the power of the slavery issue was such that in short order it replaced the fledgling and philosophically shaky Whig Party..."
Lincoln was a Whig from the beginning of his political career. Although he changed political parties, his Whig philosophy--protectionist tariffs, govt subsidised "internal improvements" (corporate welfare), and a national bank--never strayed from Whig party lines. Anti-slavery??? Hardly, but I'll let Abe hisself tell you:
From a Lincoln speech in Peoria, Ill, Oct 16, 1854.
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them. Slave states are the places for poor white people to move from...New free states are the places for poor white people to go and better their condition."
There's plenty more where that came from, from Lincoln and other early Republicans. The Truth is out there, as they say.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 1:02PM
Internal improvements referred to federal projects within the states. Now we call it pork projects. At the time most, including Madison and Monroe who might be expected to know, felt the idea unconstitutional. It was a big part of Henry Clay and the Whigs program. Madison thought the idea had merit but always maintained it would take a constitutional amendment to allow it. Somewhere along the line, they just started doing it and and no one complained. Now, well here we are.
All American American| 6.7.11 @ 1:36PM
"Somewhere along the line" was Lincoln and the railroads. And yes, here we are, exactly.
Seek| 6.7.11 @ 3:52PM
So Lincoln looked out after white people -- his own kind. Good for him. Were he a Jack Kemp-style champion of blacks, I would disown him in a minute.
All American American| 6.7.11 @ 4:31PM
Seek, to each his own when it comes to race relations.
However my post was to point out that ending slavery was not a part of the Republican party platform in 1860. Further, Lincoln was no champion of the slave that he's made out to be.
John| 6.7.11 @ 1:41PM
First, it is not just union products that are made overseas but hi-tech products and other non-union product as well. And the Founders envisioned an America under laws with healthy competition within our borders and between states, so that business climate should be fostered to counter higher union products. Besides sending complete factories overseas is not even trade (which is an exchange of goods) and should be outlawed.
Now some Americans may like cheaper (and lower grade) China products, but explain that to a 40-year-old man whose job has been outsourced by some multi-national globalist corporation with zero loyalty to America or the American worker.
The GOP field, Sarah included, is for enriching a lawless communist regime (including providing our wealth to build up their ominous military) while decimating ours. It is anti-American and destroying our once independent and prosperous country.
We desperately need an American-First Third Party along with a new patriotic media that advocates policies for the good of America not Wall Street and bought off politicians and pundits.
George S| 6.7.11 @ 2:15PM
Your economics is off. Americans do not like cheaper products, they buy them because they are cheaper. Raise the price and the demand drops, which is why you cannot simultaneously have higher paid American workers and cheap prices. The only way for that to happen is for the American worker to back up his demand for a $30.00 per hour salary with productivity to match that of his Chinese counterpart. And we all know what unions have to say about their members working hard. This is a problem of culture -- Chinese are willing to work harder (more productive) while Americans want a week's salary for an honest day's work.
Jack London| 6.7.11 @ 2:27PM
American workers are the world's most productive. What are you proposing - that we pay them all a dollar an hour and work them 12 hours a day and watch as they jump off plant roofs like in China?
George S| 6.7.11 @ 2:30PM
Correct on the overall, but not in terms of their compensation. If that were the case, then jobs wouldn't be exported overseas. The cost of labor here is higher; that higher cost not commensurate with productivity.
Jack London| 6.7.11 @ 3:15PM
So what wold you do about it, given that American workers already turn in the best dollar performance in the developed world and work harder and longer than say the Europeans too?
skip| 6.7.11 @ 3:59PM
Let free market capitalism operate in an actual and honest system free from any and all interference from any and all politicians, any and all of which are too unintelligent and too dishonest to contribute any positive benefits, all too many of which are simply liars, cheats, and thieves, none of which can compete with the millions and billions of individual real free market decisions of supply and demand, that in totality keep the overall system more perfectly balanced in a state of true equilibrium, despite the complexity of all the virtually uncountable variables, than any combination of any humans could possibly intentionally produce.
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 4:19PM
skip, Please understand that Jack is enlightened enough to realize that guys like Obama, Weiner, Rangle, & co. need to solve the big problems like health care for us. You see, we are just a huddled mass of morons seeking direction from the genius elites who pass legislation they have not bothered to read while Tweeting a photo of their lame package cross country to random chicks half their age.
I would prefer to make my own decisions on health care, retirement etc & use my own $$ to pay for it but Jack knows that Weiner & Co. have a much better plan for me & my $$. It's just so refreshing to know we have guys like Weiner, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Rangle & co up there to manage the tax till.....
skip| 6.7.11 @ 4:32PM
There is no reason why health insurance should be any different to purchase than it is to purchase auto insurance, home insurance, and life insurance.
George S| 6.7.11 @ 5:02PM
What to do is very simple -- take a scalpel to government regulation. For example, why is Boeing forced out of a right to work state? Because the labor lobby wants to preserve compensation. The purpose of a labor union, Jack, is two fold: to make the supply of labor scarce thus increasing its cost to employers, and to minimize productivity (decreased hours, more vacations, division of labor, etc). By removing some of these regulations, a Boeing can hire labor the old fashioned way -- this is what we offer, do you accept? If the labor supply is low (due to a natural dearth of skilled labor), the wage offered in increased. If that supply is high, the wage is lowered until there are just enough qualified applicants remaining. Do that, and the free market will supply you with the labor necessary to wipe the floor with China et al.
The other problem is the ability of the capitalist to open a factory to compete with China. The cost of going through -- and complying with -- government red tape (EPA, OSHA, EEOC, etc) adds to the bottom line cost, making outsourcing more attractive. These political roadblocks are hard to overcome because a lot of people make a lot of money with the status quo. Lawyers, lobbyists, Wall Street all thrive over regulation (not to mention moving around all that fiat money generated by our fractional reserve money supply -- a topic for another day).
But the government throws a monkey wrench into the mix -- by padding government jobs with high pay and benefits, it poisons the free market. Who would want to do shift work in a factory when you could get the same (or more) pay in government with generous benefits. This now becomes the standard of labor, not only in terms of effort but of compensation. They get first crack at the goodies such as housing and durable goods.
Then there are the give-aways. Do you have any idea of the level of productivity destroyed unemployment and disability compensation?
With all these political "safety nets", productivity remains low. Cease unemployment benefits and watch people panic into finding anything -- anything -- to pay the bills. Just like the Chinese.
Jack London| 6.7.11 @ 5:51PM
Sorry George but this is nonsense as usual (but credit for your views on criminal justice - a rare light shone in the empty darkness of the conservative mind).
You must know there's no way we'll be moving to an economy where we'll be onshoring vast numbers of factories assembling cellphones and stitching sweatshirts. You conceded we have the best productivity - what you should be answering is how we fix the downturn.
Clearly, the answer lies in returning us to the conditions where we thrive - in a higher tax, higher investment and higher opportunity land. To argue - as Tim Pawlenty is doing now - that slashing taxes leads to economic growth is a mad and opposite take on the truth, as we can see in all the figures.
To argue that organized labor and decent benefits are the drags on a flexible, productive workforce is also the complete opposite of the truth. In your way lies fear, further social breakdown and economic ruin.
Butch | 6.7.11 @ 5:03PM
That productivity is the result of the capital equipment American workers work with, and certainly not the result of their (workers) individual efforts. Were it not for the government-allowed monopoly of labor unions, the fruits of that productivity would go to stockholders and be reinvested back into the economy for growth. In addition, American labor costs would be much more competitive versus worldwide rates and American manufacturing would return home. Labor unions distort everything.
Joe D.| 6.7.11 @ 2:25PM
Mr. Lord, I humbly have to disagree with you about no 3rd party candidate can win. They said a black could never be president. Never, say never. I think it will happen some day. When I do not know. It will take someone like a Reagan to do it.
But if they, the GOP, elect another loser moderate like McCain and Dole we will have to vote 3rd party. Rudy and Romney are moderate losers. We do not want them. The rest of the current field is good except maybe Gingrich. He seems to have foot in the mouth disease.
Steve Beren | 6.7.11 @ 2:25PM
Since 1856, not only have the Democrats and Republicans been the only two victorious parties in presidential elections, but only twice has another party even placed second. The Republicans placed third in 1912, with incumbent Taft trailing the Progressive candidate, former president Teddy Roosevelt, who placed second. And the official Democratic nominee of 1860 (Stephen Douglas), while placing second in the popular vote, finished fourth in the electoral vote due to a split in the Democratic Party.
David| 6.7.11 @ 2:56PM
Now is not the time to even think about a 3rd-Party - much less to tinker and toy with the idea. We need the most effective conservative we can find to run as a Repub.
We need someone who is an expert at ridiculing the false premises in the questions that Repub candidates get from the media.
Gingrich is great at it, but we do not need him. Santorum will do fine. I admit that I don't know that much about Pawlenty - in fact, I even forgot that he was a two-term governor, which is a big positive in my opinion.
We need someone special. Bam Bam is going to be almost impossible to beat - especially if he does what I think he will and make Hillary his VP running mate.
JimH| 6.7.11 @ 3:07PM
Both parties would rather see the other win an election than a third party candidate. Over time the election and contribution laws have been skewed in such a manner to favor the two parties, particularly incumbents. I think tactically the best hope GOP reformers have, be they Tea Party, libertarian or social conservative is to get control of the party infrastructure from district leader level on up to the RNC. It would take a sort of ‘perfect storm’ of conditions for a third part to succeed. Some combination of popular revulsion with the established parties akin to the Tea Party, major party candidates viewed as similar enough to split the voters and some real good leveraging of the web would be needed along with a party that stood for more than its current candidate.
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 3:15PM
I sure hope no serious Republican will opt for a third party run. In 1968, Wallace almost cost Nixon the lection. In 1980 Anderson, who ran as a fiscal conservative, was probably foisted upon us by establishment types who didn't like Reagan but Carter was too weak and Reagan pulled it off anyway. In 1992 Perot got out of the race and George H W Bush very shortly after that went ahead in the polls. Once that happened Perot got back in and cost Bush the lection. Perot admitted that he had a grudge against Bush senior and also admitted that he had made a mistake in running since it threw the election to Clinton. But whether the third party was for personal grudges or establishment setups or Wallace's pro-segregation run, third parties seem to hurt Republican candidates more than Democrat candidates.
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 3:16PM
sp - lection -> election
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 3:26PM
I also find it quite interesting that, thankfully, Huckabee bowed out, but once Sarah Palin starts her bus tour he makes noises about the fact that his exit is a "maybe," yes, good-'ol iron-Mike. My instinct tells me that if she gets in and does okay in the polls that he will get in a a check against her. He's a reverend but firmly in the establishment camp, and I think they will not want to see a Pentacostal, non-establishment evangelical like Palin win the nomination. I could be wrong but this is my hunch and here's one evangelical who will never vote for Huckabee if he should get the nomination.
Drunken Sailor| 6.7.11 @ 4:47PM
I agree, he sided with McCain to sink Romney so why wouldn't he try to sink Palin? I liked him as a canidate until I read his book. True, blue Rino.
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 5:21PM
Yes, he'd go for McCain over Romney. He's Southern Baptist and a good percentage, I've seen numbers up to 20%, of their pastors are RINOs and Christians In Name Only too. I've had personal dealings with some southern Baptist as well as other fundamentalist pastors and leaders and I could go along with that %.
Romney, being Mormon, does not fit into their plans at all. I personally don't care if he is Mormon. I will look at his policies and make my decision based on them.
Let's take a look at some Southern Baptists who we all know and "care" about:
Jimy Carter - we all know him
Al Gore - we all know him too
Mike Huckabee - Smooth talking RINO
Bill Clinton - went to church, dropped out, lost the election, then sits in the choir just behind the pastor so that the TV cameras were on him every week.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 5:21PM
The election of an establishment Republican will not be sufficient to save Constitutional government in this nation. therefor, it would be better for future generations to see America's collapse come under the Social-Democrat party than under "moderate Republicans". That way the proper philosophy will get the blame and perhaps future generations will rediscover Liberty. They may curse our names for failing them, but at least tyranny will show itself where in fact it lies.
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 9:37PM
Agreed, and this is why I voted 3rd party in 2008 and will do so again in 2012 if the Republicans put up another establishment candidate.
However, I am watching Palin more again. I have not been impressed by her lack of elocution when speaking but that may have come from intense attacks. Lately she's sounding a little better. But I have read that she's soft on illegal immigration. Again, this is an area where I hope she will be more clear and come out strongly in favor of a border wall and enforcement. I do not really know firmly what her position is yet.
She may be a positive and strong conservative under it all. She seems like a good woman in many ways but I think she's a scrapper too and can fight back. She's got nothing to lose at this point. I will wait and see.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:33PM
That isn't the way I remember it. Remember Bush? "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES"?
It was about principles, and Bush was posing as a conservative and lying to the voters. He might even be the FIRST real RINO.
Look what Nader has done to the democrats, you don't think he has moved that party to the left? He now threatens to run as a third party and the democrats immediately stand up straight.
We need to do the same. If given a candidate that we know doesn't support OUR PRINCIPLES and the constitution, we don't need to accept that, we will run a third party. The leadership will either have to change or lose their power! They can not continue to pick candidates if they only pick losers! They will be ousted! It isn't about who's TURN it is, it is about WHO THE VOTERS WILL TURN OUT FOR!
JP| 6.7.11 @ 3:32PM
Mitt did make Palin's job easier last week while in New Hampshire. A reporter asked him if he believed that humans are the cause of global warming. His immediate answer was, "Yes".
I am amazed that the so-called "front-runners" or grown-up Republicans continue to make so many unforced errors so early in the campaign.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:38PM
This is corruption, and the stupidity to think that Americans are so stupid to believe this crap. Any politician who pushes global warming is a one world government rule of the rich advocate.
john dubose| 6.7.11 @ 3:34PM
It is mainly the plurality take all + electorial college that has locked the Dems and Reps into perpetual conflict/power. A third party could easily win if the spoiler fear factor was eliminated.
There ARE ways. We must change the constitution and decide to demand them from our elected pols.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 5:24PM
What Constitutional change are you suggesting?
I love it that certain leftist states have mandated themselves into casting electoral votes for the Republican by passing laws requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote.
RCV| 6.9.11 @ 6:44PM
The so-called popular-vote amendment would take effect only when agreed to by states with a majority of electoral votes, thus ensuring that the votes would only go to a Republican who wins a majority of the national popular vote.
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:41PM
I don't know if we need to "change" the constitution, just need to follow it. I think I would support an amendment where 2/3 of the states could negate federal legislation, AND supreme court rulings like KELO. I think that would be beneficial and we could streamline it to make this process very quick if we wanted.
Hobbes| 6.7.11 @ 4:07PM
I have changed my mind. I am now planning to vote for Palin for president. Imagine what a wonderful, crazy circus we will have for four years. Maybe she will have Glenn Beck as Veep. And Ann Coulter as Sec of State. What fun! America will be like one big carnival ride at the zoo. How much more interesting than the Bush or Clinton White Houses. Every time she opens her mouth there will be headlines. PALIN IN 2012!!!!
Steve A| 6.7.11 @ 4:25PM
Hobbes, I'm hoping for 4 more from Obama. Really, I am. I need to sell my Obama collector plate set though if he gets in. I need to raise some $$ because 4 more Summers of recovery like these last couple & my wallet will be limper than Weiner's next Tweet. Are you interested??
voted against carter| 6.7.11 @ 4:45PM
Reagan was an actor for 20 years BEFORE he became a politician.
This is one reason he was able to LOOK so in control (which he ALSO was)
He understood the theatrics of politics better than ANYone else at the time.
Keep the message simple and easy to understand.
EVIL EMPIRE. TEAR DOWN THIS WALL. THERE HE GOES,.. AGAIN,..
Reagan WAS a MASTER politician, there is NO denying that.
To day we MIGHT be witnessing the birth of the NEXT MASTER politician in the Reagan school.
Altho it remains to be seen in that she might not run,.. and America will be poorer for it if she does not.
All I can say is Carter / Reagan 1979.
And we ALL know just how THAT worked out thank God.
The Leftwing nut LIBRATARDS know in their bones that Sarah Palin,...
IS Ronald Reagan ALL OVER AGAIN. IT TERRIFIES them to no end.
ESPECIALLY the ones who are OLD enough to remember Reagan.
So they are trying with EVERY thing they have to,...
destroy her in a pre-emptive strike.
If you have heard ANY of her recent speech's, you understand.
Sarah Palin REALLY IS the real deal.
Not some pre-packaged made up configuration like their hero Barry.
The Left senses this and has reacted like expected.
IF she runs against barry in 2012,…
She WILL CRUSH him with indisputable numbers.
Compared to barry she is Exactly what America will NEED to repair
ALL of the damage wrought by the Dumb-O-cRATs and barry and his UNION masters.
This is ONE MORE REASON America NEED's Sarah Palin NOW more than EVER.
And I can NOT stress this enough,...
Sarah Palin IS ONE of the ONLY women IN the REPUBLICAN PARTY,...
With the "B A L L S" to tell Barry and his UNION masters,...
AND the Dumb-O-cRATs to SHOVE their agenda were the sun does NOT SHINE!!.
PALIN / BOLTON 2012
or
Barack Obama 2012?
then “YOU may want to think about a TRADE-IN.”
PALIN / (Fill in the blank) 2012
Butch | 6.7.11 @ 5:15PM
I voted against Carter, too. I do agree that Palin is the most charismatic candidate since Reagan, and far more charismatic than Kennedy. She has the ability to connect with the left's worst enemy: ordinary Americans.
By the way, you are right about Reagan's acting ability. I once read that his hollywood specialty was "best friend," and he could really play that part, couldn't he?
RCV| 6.7.11 @ 5:30PM
You are so isolated from reality if you think Palin "will crush [Obama] with indisputable numbers." New poll out today confirms that 63% of Americans believe her "unqualified" to be President; that 64% of all voters would not support a Palin candidacy, including 42% of REPUBLICANS.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 5:54PM
RCV:
Did we ever decide on the steak house for our dinner?
ChillyinAlaska| 6.9.11 @ 4:46PM
Your assessment is right on. I hope all conservatives listen to you, she is the real deal.
The progressives know Carter=Reagan, and they are doing their best to change this equation to Obama=RINO (Obama lite). Tell Rove, Krauthammer and the other progressive republicans to STFU and quit talking down OUR candidates. It's bad enough to have the democrats and the "nutlicking" lame stream media to fight, but then these "establishment progressive republicans" posing as conservatives....
voted against carter| 6.7.11 @ 4:45PM
"May you live in interesting times" or
Is she or isn't she??? THAT is the Question.
Sarah Palin IS running for president. PERIOD.
ANY one with a brain can see this.
This apparently is why most of the Washington beltway pundit conservatives (and I use the label LOOSLY) are having trouble
getting their heads around it.
This is one of the best fake-outs in politics today.
A "stealth Campaign". Can we say hiding in plan sight?
Yes, I think we can.
The fact that Palin has NOT declared defangs the press and renders them impotent. If they go after her they look foolish AND vindictive all at the same time. "Whats the problem?? she's not even running",…
For the press it is a no win situation. For Palin it its the exact opposite.
WIN-WIN big time.
She can control the narrative.
AND make the press look foolish all at the SAME time.
What more could you ask for???
Watch how the lame-stream media spins it.
They will twist this to the point of ridiculousness.
"reality show star" "not a serious candidate" "can't win"
"over shadowing actual candidates",…LOL!!
If the lame -stream media decides to NOT cover Palin now,.. when she does announce, they will look really foolish and they know it.
Or they just MIGHT miss that "for sure to happen GAFF" that they ALL KNOW is coming and won't be able to exploit it.
So they MUST pay attention.
Sarah Plain will wait until the LAST possible moment she can before she declares.
This does two thing. It renders the media impotent,… AND…
Palin KNOWS the media's heads will explode at that moment in time.
The media WILL go insane.
There will be no possibility of pretending that the lame-stream media is in any way objective.
They WILL ALL pile on. They will NOT BE ABLE TO HELP themselves.
It WILL be come clear to EVERYONE. Even to the "independent" liberals
The inescapable conclusion will be the lame-stream media IS nothing more than a PARTISAN WING of the DemocRAT Party.
END of the Lame-stream media as we see it now.
Let the revolution begin!!!
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 5:51PM
I wrote above abot Huckabee's (G)rumblings about reentering. My suspicion in that the timing was just as Palin started her bus tour is that this was a "warning" shot by him across her bow. I don't think the establishment in the political or protestant church circles (even so a small but fairly controlling % in the churchv leadership) wants her to get the nomination.
But it could be that her musings about a third party are a "warning" shot across their bows should they purposefully defeat her nomination if she decides to run.
BackToBasics| 6.7.11 @ 5:52PM
miskey - churchv - > church
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 6:03PM
Everything else notwithstanding, how fun it would be to cast a vote for a Palin-Trump ticket in America's last election.
RCV| 6.7.11 @ 6:10PM
We haven't yet made plans for an actual meeting. The original bet Occam and I had was for a Ruth Chris gift certificate, but we'll see.
Certainly if those 2 won, it might well be our last election.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.7.11 @ 7:41PM
I don't bother with a silly post revealing what a stupid idiot I am when the previous thousand or so previous posts showing what a stupid idiot I am didn't slow me down one bit on the irony any ticket could possibly do more damage to America than the one in the white house right now and the irony I have not posted once in defense of anything the dithering idiot liar in chief has done to improve the economy as I constantly guarantee his reelection among my many many many ways I reveal myself to be a stupid idiot matters.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 7:55PM
Some of us like, Ken and I, sorta invited ourselves along. We thought it might be fun to actually meet up somewhere for the steak. I suggested Liberal Kansas for the irony although I don't know of any Ruth Cris there. We'll stay in touch.
RCV| 6.8.11 @ 11:33AM
Alot will depend on how homicidal Ken is feeling after the loss in November 2012.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.8.11 @ 8:04PM
I don't bother with silly exaggerations of homicidal individuals on being an ardent proponent of socialism and fascism and tyranny as my posts constantly prove and other proofs I am pathetic and despicable and unintelligent and dishonest ergo evil matters.
RCV| 6.9.11 @ 6:38PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.9.11 @ 8:39PM
I don't bother with silly sanctimonious proclamations of the homicidal as I proclaim my devout churchgoing Christianity and at least belonging to the party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born on it being too bad about the FIFTY THREE MILLION innocent Americans the party I at least belong to has homicidally aborted and many many of my other equally pathetic and despicable proclamations as devout churchgoing Christian matters.
Red Phillips | 6.7.11 @ 6:05PM
"No Third Party -- by which me mean any party other than Republicans and Democrats -- in all of American history has ever elected a president."
This is incorrect. Perhaps you mean after 1860? We had one Federalist and several Whig Presidents before then.
"But the power of the slavery issue was such that in short order it replaced the fledgling,/b> and philosophically shaky Whig Party,"
Fledgling? It had elected several Presidents prior to 1860?
Red Phillips | 6.7.11 @ 6:07PM
Opps. Messed up my attempt to bold fledgling?
David| 6.7.11 @ 7:21PM
Third Party? Republican? Who cares? This woman is a trainwreck with lipstick. This woman carries a garbled sense of history, geography, and politics to ridiculously low levels. This woman defines "quitter."
On the other hand, she's hilarious. She would make a wonderful third ring for the three circus that will be the 2012 Presidential race. At least, she'd be amusing unlike the rest of them. Well, Donald's pretty funny. Santorum is such a parody of a Right Winger that's kinda funny and kinda sad.
Come To Your Senses, Man!| 6.7.11 @ 8:03PM
If Palin goes third party, she splits winning votes away from the Republican nominee, NOT from Obama.
Guaranteed Results:
1. BO
2. Repub
3. Palin
I would be dumbfounded if this woman (who I have some admiration for) would sacrifice her country to four additional years of Obama, in the name of misguided political ego.
The damage a re-energized Obama would inflict on the country inside and out would be incomprehensible - God forbid, maybe even unrecoverable.
Perot gave us Slick Willie; Palin will give us Obama Bin Sodom.
If Palin runs third party, I will never forgive her --
Nor will what's left of the country....
Michael Tomlinson| 6.8.11 @ 1:03AM
You nailed it no matter what dedicated Palinistas think.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 6:11AM
The Perot incident that brought us "slick willie" is always portrayed as "third party" and the mentally dereange think that "all the perot votes came from democrats. A lot of those vote were from "D's."
What you people seem to forget tis that there is not convention or wisdom in "conventional wisdom."
The Republicans lost, for exactly the same reason they always lose, they put forth the wrong candidate. For you see, Republicans, especially establishment Republicans are possibly some of the most ignorant people on the planet.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 6:13AM
Sorry meant to say "all - Republicans." It is so hard to compose on line. I should know better by now but I have not had any coffee yet, and I have not donned my Palinista cap.
Nite| 6.7.11 @ 9:59PM
Third party, very bad idea. That would mean that Obama would get a second term. MUCH WORSE IDEA!
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 6:23AM
There are two parties in play next election, the progressives and the Tea Party. The democrats and the Republicans have to sit this one out in the penalty box for blatant stupidity.
Are you so niave to think that most people have not noticed how dumb you really are? Oh, ya - let's let the bonehead party get back in power, they have done so well.
We have tried everything possible to make you follow your oaths of office, you refuse. It will be you that give us four more years Obama, not us.
Everyone knows this even you; you however. will not admit it yet.
utopia| 6.8.11 @ 10:57PM
like
Taylor Horton| 6.8.11 @ 6:35AM
God how the bleeding left hate people with morals, faith, character, etc... all the things Liberals have forsaken.
http://skinnyfiberreviewsgetfr.....press.com/
martin j smith| 6.8.11 @ 7:36AM
Whatever Palin is she is no fool. My hunch is that she is playing the role of PIT BULL IN CHIEF FOR THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE. And doing and saying things to pushing Republicans to the RIGHT . The Republican Party will her to consider this seriously. We shall see.
allan l| 6.8.11 @ 9:00AM
Third party or no, we need to enlarge the conservative control at State levels. We then in unison force the Fed back into his cage and strip all the Bling (spaghetti alphabets) and put them in the trash bin. Continuing to add
strong, honest, conservatives to our local areas will have a pronounced affect on the landscape. Perhaps we can then reverse some deceptive amendment changes and additions. As of this post Pawlenty/Cain?
insanity | 6.13.11 @ 10:59AM
good to hear that
weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:33AM
Third party, very bad idea. That would mean that Obama would get a second term. MUCH WORSE IDEA!