2012 - Romney v Palin? I'm picking Choice C.

I'm going to get some heat for this one. I'll start off with this. Of the two supposed "top tier" candidates jockeying, or potentially jockeying for position as frontrunner for 2012, Romney and Palin are two of the least electable. I'll call Romney's position none, and Palin's slim. If I had to vote for one with a gun to my head, I would cringe and vote for Palin because I trust her more than Romney. I prefer someone else. I much prefer "Choice C."

From National Review and Ramesh Ponnuru

A Romney vs. Palin match-up would, for one thing, be a straight-up power struggle between the tea parties and the Republican establishment. Romney has avoided association with the tea parties and Palin has courted them. In a Palin vs. Romney race, the party establishment would rally behind him because it regards her as a certain loser in November 2012 — and fears that she would lose big enough to do damage to Republican congressional and gubernatorial candidates.

Other presidential candidates could bridge this divide. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, for example, might gain tea-party support because of his budget-cutting record, but also enjoys establishment support. Neither Palin nor Romney is likely to have the same breadth of appeal. Romney’s past liberal positions are likely to strike tea partiers as evidence that his conservative principles are insincere, and his championing of a health-care law in Massachusetts that strikingly resembles Obamacare will make them even more hostile. Palin, meanwhile, revels in the opposition of establishment figures. Their opposition is a key part of her strategy for mobilizing grassroots conservatives. Watching the party establishment line up behind Romney — and thus, from their point of view, behind Obamacare — would enrage the party’s populists.

That's only brushing it. A lot of the bitter infighting attacks in 2008 happened even before the election was over. You had some of Romney's national people, absorbed on McCain's staff, leaking stuff about Palin, anonymously to the press. They saw the polls, wrote off the election, went to trash Palin because if she goes down with the ship, Romney (who couldn't even beat McCain) wins for 2012. Many grassroots on the right united behind Palin because of those attacks. They see national elites trashing their person. There is a very bitter view between the Palin and Romney crowds over that. Harmfully, it's grown into a cult of personality, and those are never anything but harmful in politics, regardless of whose side it is. Celebrity politics needs to end.


More:

Class is another increasingly uncomfortable fault line in the party (as Reihan Salam and I recently described in these pages). Romney’s supporters tend to be college-educated, while Palin draws her support from people who didn’t get college diplomas. In recent elections, upper-middle-class voters have left the Republican party in part because they regard it as dominated by yahoos and know-nothings. But other voters, particularly in the party’s base, resent what they see as a tendency to overestimate the importance of degrees from prestigious colleges. In the Delaware Senate race, populist candidate Christine O’Donnell started an ad by saying, “I didn’t go to Yale.” (Romney has two degrees from Harvard, Palin one from the University of Idaho.)
.......................
The 2008 presidential election was a festival of identity politics in both parties: upper-middle-class white women voted for Hillary Clinton, Mormons and rich people for Romney, evangelicals for Mike Huckabee, young and inexperienced voters for Barack Obama. If Romney and Palin are the top Republican contenders, the next presidential race could become even more tribal.

I only partially agree with this, and Pommuru is now generalizing a little too much. I agree with the "class" issues, in regards to social class. I disagree with education issues on this. I have two degrees, including a JD and I can not stand Romney. I have my issues with Palin as well, but if I was forced to chose between the two, I'd very reluctantly pick Palin who is less of a chameleon. Degrees have nothing to do with it. Can you do the job, or not?

What people don't like is what is commonly referred to as elitism. Elitism however doesn't mean "the best" when it comes to politics. It's sneering snobbishness that is both arrogant and ignorant of the real world. It's the attitude of "I have a Harvard degree so I am smarter than you. In addition, you are stupid and unable to govern yourself so we will do things for you." That's the attitude that people despise, and the attitude they see. Good ideas and good data supporting those ideas can stand on their own regardless of any "titles" somebody has. I don't care if someone's education level is PhD, MD, JD, MA, MS, BA, BS, Associates, High School, or 10th grade dropout. If it's good, it can stand on its own. I'll look at the data, and my own decision whether it is good. When it comes to running my life, I'll handle that, as I'm the expert who knows all the data - not government.

Now the problems with Romney and Palin:

Romney:
1. Lost to McCain in the primary.
2. Many of the same base problems with McCain from his senate career also applies to Romney. However, then Romney was seen as lesser of the two evils. Today, Romneycare changes that. It was a minor issue in 2008. Not today.
3. Chameleon. He shifts his issues depending on where he is. That's a problem, even more so in the age of the internet.
4. Anti 2nd Amendment. He signed a gun ban. His record here is no different than Obama.
5. Little working class appeal.
6. Big government guy as governor.

Palin:
1. She QUIT. This is what lost me. Yes, I know there was pressures from the lawsuits in Alaska, many of them are frivolous. However, as popular as Palin was with grassroots, she could have made that back easily on the speaker circuit, where she's worth millions. Palin was 3 years as a first termer as governor. She didn't finish out her contract. If she finished her term, that would be one thing. If she runs for president, will she quit two years in when the pressure mounts - pressure that will be unlike anything that happens in Anchorage.

2. Experience. Yes, I know Obama's experience qualifies him as fetching coffee in any major establishment, even compared to Palin. However, this isn't good enough.

3. Cult of personality. The most overrated issue in politics is charisma. I know she has a big following, but unless you are Reagan, Clinton, FDR, JFK, or possibly Teddy Roosevelt or William McKinley, you're not going to out charisma Obama. However, you can run against the charisma, against celebrity politics, and what comes with it. I'm real tired of the American Idolization of politics, and I don't think I'm the only one out there.

4. Problems with independents. Polls are speculation and a snapshot in time at best. However, Palin's negatives are extremely high, and that's not just in the Northeast, but most states. Can she change them? Maybe, but I can't count on that. I don't know exactly if it is due to the cult of personality, style, experience, or idiots who think what Tina Fey and Jon Stewart say are actually news. Regardless of the reasons, Palin would have a lot of ground to reverse.

If not Palin or Romney, then who? I'm also leaning strongly against any 2008 candidate.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has all but announced his candidacy. Johnson's an interesting candidacy as a libertarian leaning republican. There's a lot I like about where he stands. Balanced budgets, use of the veto, and decriminalization are areas where I generally agree. I do have a major disagreement with his abortion stance, and I am a bit more conservative than he is on non-fiscal matters. I'd need to know who he supports as judges before I'd jump aboard that campaign.

Businessman, former senate candidate, and talk show host Herman Cain has announced. He's generally good on the issues, but how would he get traction in a campaign not holding political office. It's possible, and 2012 might be the year for a "nonpolitician."

I'm keeping an eye on Governors/recent Governor's Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, and Haley Barbour. I'm balancing my anti-08 leanings, my own views of electability, and ideology in this decision. I'll likely support one of these five over the two with the hype. We'll see what happens down the road.

Thoughts on the Giffords assasination attempt and fallout

A lot of yapping has been going on in all quarters the past few days. I decided to wait it out before posting anything. Right now, here's the facts. Anything else is opinion, conjecture, speculation, opinion, demonetization, or even lies.

1. Six people have been killed, including Judge John Roll and a nine year old girl.
2. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, was shot and is in critical condition, but likely to survive. Good. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.
3. In custody as the prime suspect is Jared Lee Loughner who was by all accounts, caught at the scene. He's been charged with murder and attempted murder. The case has not gone to trial.
4. Loughner had things posted on myspace and youtube, but that's the extent so far about what is known about his opinions.
5. This is a federal case due to a federal judge being killed and a congresswoman being attacked. There is also Pima County jurisdiction for other charges that may occur.
6. Loughner has invoked his right to remain silent at this time.
7. The firearm was a Glock 19 (9mm) pistol. (not an automatic as earlier news reports stated)
8. Loughner has two priors, one for drug paraphernalia possession, the other unknown outside of it being a "minor" charge.

Those are the facts. Anything else is conjecture. What follows below is opinion.

One thing surprising to a lot of people, but that we take for granted is how easy it really is for us to meet our representatives. I've seen Mike Rogers several times over the last 10 years. The only entourage I've seen him with is staff. Sometimes, it's just Mike. Mike's office has been vandalized in the past, and he's had his share of threats. The only security I've ever seen around Mike are concealed pistol holders. I've also met in the past Debbie Stabenow (then congresswoman), John Dingell, Tim Walberg, Pete Hoekstra, Vern Ehlers, Justin Amash, Fred Upton, Candice Miller, John Conyers, Dan Benishek, and Thad McCotter, as either a candidate or congressman (or both). People in both parties. I'm not saying that to sound important, but to mention accessibility to those who make the effort. None of them had police escorts that I could tell. None of them had overt private security. I know several of them are gun owners and are probably CPL holders, and have CPL holders on their staff, but it's nothing like presidential security.

Same goes for the state level. I've never seen major security for our state reps either outside of the check in at the house building and the floor itself at the capitol. DC is more stringent, but security is not difficult there either. Our state reps are even more accessible than our congressmen. Many here in Livingston County (and Shiawassee and part of Ingham) probably saw Joe Hune knock on their door.

Even the gubernatorial and senate candidates I've seen did not have a lot (or any) security. I saw Granholm making the rounds at the capitol without police escort. I don't know how much security she had at speaking events. Carl Levin drove himself to one event (I've seen Rogers do the same several times). Bouchard, Butler, Zandstra, and Rocky have been easily accessible during their campaigns without massive security.

Unfortunately but understandable, I think we may be losing that to a degree with this. It'll be interesting to see what future security measures are taken to reduce the chance of lone wolf deranged individuals like the next Loughner.

And that's exactly what Loughner is by all accounts. A lone wolf deranged individual who didn't really fit in any political spectrum, as you'd guess by a guy who lists Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto has favorites.....next to We the Living (Polar opposites of one another Collectivists books next to Objectivist books). He was athiest, supported flag burning, didn't support the currency, thought there was mind control through grammar (whatever that is), and was big on "conscience dreaming". This guy really couldn't be put on a map.

As far as Giffords goes, she's a moderate by democrat standards and isn't as controversial to the mainstream as a lot of the other democrats. By most accounts, people liked her (and her district went for Bush twice and McCain). She's relatively pro-2nd Amendment, and at least moderate on border issues (and better than Bush there). If this was indeed a right v left ideological hit in Arizona, I can think of someone else I'd expect to be the target, and no, I'm not mentioning who it would be. This is the work of one nutter.

But according to the leftists, kos crazies, and the media, this is all Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck's fault, not the shooter. Dancing in the blood before it is dry. It was almost like it was glee. They wanted to find something to attack Palin, who they are obsessed with (and I think it comes down to their pro-abortion views, and Palin is a real threat to that as she chose life over eugenics) I'm not surprised. This is politics, which is about power, and the left wants power over people. The big attack on Palin is gasp, targets on districts from her PAC site during the election. Big f'ing deal. Big deal. (DCCC did the same thing, and KOS targeted Giffords for not being leftist enough) Anyone who works in the business understands some of the terms. Target seats. A target district is a swing district. That's it. That was the clear intent, and anyone with a brain knows it. Those saying otherwise are idiots or agenda driven. The cable TV and talk radio attacks are out there as well. Free speech for some, not for all. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

Speaking of "hateful" rhetoric, here's some blasts from the past.

Craig Kilborn Show - Graphic of Target Site around then President Bush. Sniper's Wanted was the caption.

"Death of a President" - 2006 Film about assassinating George W Bush.

Alec Baldwin talked about stoning Henry Hyde and killing his family. This c***s***er Baldwin even brought the kids into it....and I don't even care for Mr. Hyde.

Or Kos Crazy 'Boy Blue' who ripped...Gabrielle Giffords as dead to him.

Plenty more at Michelle Malkin's site

Talk show host Mike Malloy - I hope Glenn Beck kills himself.

Talk show host Montel Williams - Michelle (Bachman), slit your wrist. Better yet, start at the collarbone.

And about 90% of what comes out of Congresscritter Pete Stark's mouth.
Surprisingly, in a good way, I haven't heard Obama run his mouth and take pot shots like Clinton did after the OKC bombing. Yet. We need to be prepared, though. Clinton did it in 95, and the doubletalking political hack Sheriff Dupnik (long known leftist and anti-freedom - and reason why guns only in hands of cops is terrible idea) in Pima County is blaming talk radio now for this. Speaking of Dupnik, he needs to finally be taken out. (oops..inflammatory rhetoric). Taken out election time politically.

Rahm Emanuel mentioned "Never to let a crisis go to waste." After major events, our freedoms are most at risk. The attack on gun shows happened after Columbine. The ban one evil black rifles happened after the Stockton mass shooting. The Class III regulations came after mafia wars of the 20's and 30's. The KKK pushed for and achieved pistol registration and CCW restrictions after Dr Ossian Sweet defended himself with a firearm in 1920's segregated Detroit. The 1968 Gun Control act came after Bobby Kennedy's assassination. The Patriot Act happened after 9/11 after Reno and Clinton pushed for the same thing and failed a couple of years earlier, in the name of the War on some Drugs. The 2nd and 4th amendment are the usual attacks.

Right now my concern is the upcoming assault on our first, second, fourth, and tenth Amendment rights. From Politico.

McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1Af8bYLqg

Actually, it's "standard" ammunition magazines (not clips) for a Glock 19. As far as the Brady proposal, it'll be real interesting for what the language is, as it is already illegal to threaten congresscritters. "Could be seen" Real broad language there, and shouldn't pass Constitutional mustard. I'll look for the actual language when it is out.

We need to circle the wagons, and make sure that Congress knows that our freedoms are non-negotiable in any new legislation. Period. We can not let the establishment or left try to do the same thing that was done after the Oklahoma City Bombing. It may sound crass to put things in this perspective and it is unfortunately, but that's how things work in politics (power). Politicians will never let a crisis go to waste. We need to be ready and have a strong defense for any anti-freedom restrictions proposed. No more gun grabs, free speech clampdowns, or Patriot Acts. I remember what Clinton did in 1995, and we need to make sure that any repeat attempt of Clinton is challenged forcefully (like the NRA finally did in 2000) and does not happen again, whether it is by the media, Dupnik, or anybody else. We can not let ourselves be the goats.

Anonymous establishment "leaders" need to Sit Down and Shut the Hell Up

I'll clarify this with a preface. I don't know who I'm supporting for 2012. Sarah Palin is not my first choice at all. I have a real problem with her quitting in the middle of the term. I'm not focused on that right now. In case these jagoff "leaders" aren't noticing, there's an election tomorrow. Two Politico Stories out there are putting this crap out there instead, thanks to anonymous cowards afraid to put their names out there

Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin.

Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns.

Problem one. Why the hell are these "leaders" pushing this BEFORE the election. Tomorrow's election. Sarah Palin shouldn't be your concern right now. Harry Reid should be. Palin is in the middle of the pack when it comes to 2012, but if you want to see that rise, keep pushing this crap. I hate coronations and anonymous bullshit from so called "leaders", no matter which side they come from. I hate it even more when it's before the 2010 elections. Too many people want to be party stars and controller instead of trying to succeed in the right mission of less government and more freedom.

The stop-Palin talks are by no means coordinated among the various campaigns. But top advisers for most of the 2012 hopefuls told us the candidates — as well as many establishment figures — are fixated on the topic, especially on how to keep her from running or how to deny her the nomination if she does run.

A longtime Republican leader said party elders hope to thwart Palin by strengthening the Republican National Committee, which has been a magnet for controversy and has seen lackluster fundraising under current Chairman Michael Steele, and outside groups such as those blessed by Rove and Gillespie and now spending heavily on congressional races. (See: RNC aims to counter DNC cash edge)

This would represent "a strong counterweight to some kind of guerrilla effort Palin might try to launch." This leader said the party needs to create a unified job creation theme to offset the "cult of personality" that is Palin. "You deter someone by creating stronger opposition."

This strikes me as Mitt Romney's M.O. Romney lost my vote for good after the 2008 elections. That includes the general election, and not just the primary. If it's between Romney and Obama, I go libertarian. This is not just because of Romney's chameleon tenancies on policy, but based on his national staff's behavior at the end of the 2008 elections. BEFORE that election ended, the campaign was sabotaged and a lot of anonymous cowards leaked to the press. A lot of them were the DC/Beltway staffers which McCain absorbed from the Romney campaign. They lost, wanted to shift the blame from themselves and their candidates, and needed new jobs. McCain was old and not going to run in 2012. If Palin goes down, Romney was at the time viewed as their guy from the start and he wins. The trouble is that Palin has a much stronger grass roots following, and in the age of the internet, these leaks can sometimes backfire. The details of the leaks are still all over the internet, especially on redstate I'm not going to rehash everything.

I have my issues with some of Michael Steele's comments, but I agree with him 100% here.

A day before the elections, the head of the Republican National Committee lashed out at anonymous GOP critics of Sarah Palin, saying they need to “shut up.”

"These Republican leaders who don't put their names in print but make comments in shadows need to shut up," RNC Chairman Michael Steele said during an appearance Monday on CNN’s “American Morning.” “We're focused on winning elections tomorrow night. We're not focused on 2012.”

Steele made similar remarks in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“Put your name next to your quote and then have a conversation with Sarah Palin. Until then, leave it alone,” Steele said. “You know all this kind of dissension and, you know, frustration within the party is not doing anything to get Republicans elected tomorrow. So until we get that job done, let’s not worry about 2012.”

Worry about Sarah Palin and 2012 later. Tomorrow is the election. Those so called leaders pushing this crap now to the press need to be looking for new jobs, because this will do nothing but give Obama a 2nd term. I know I certainly will not be rewarding them after 2010. Precinct delegates and voters are in charge, not you. Don't ever forget that.

Adding on - Rudy Giuliani said it best and called out these so called leaders.

Recent 2012 Straw Poll (Family Research Council)

I found this interesting out of Politco

Mike Huckabee cruised to an easy victory in a presidential straw poll taken among attendees at a social conservative conference, beating a group of four other Republican contenders by an over two-to-one margin.

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a 2008 presidential candidate, won with just over 28 percent of the 597 votes cast by attendees at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the runner-up, narrowly edging out Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Alaska Gov. and Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and House Minority Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.). The four all received about 12% of the vote.

There was a fairly large political conference with the Family Research Council which is a social conservative organization. I didn't hear much about it, but they said it drew 1800 registrants. Their event was called the Values Voter Summit in DC. I ally with them heavily on abortion and the courts, but I do clash with them heavily on censorship/FCC issues with my less government views.

I went to their website and found the official straw poll results. They were interesting to say the least.

1. Mike Huckabee 170 28.48%
2. Mitt Romney 74 12.40%
3. Tim Pawlenty 73 12.23%
4. Sarah Palin 72 12.06%
5. Mike Pence 71 11.89%
6. Newt Gingrich 40 6.70%
7. Bobby Jindal 28 4.69%
8. Rick Santorum 15 2.51%
9. Ron Paul 13 2.18%
10. Undecided 31 5.19%
11. Other 10 1.68%

While nobody got a majority, Huckabee ran away with it with twice the votes of the nearest competitor. That's not a surprise. He was the favorite in 08 among a large number of social conservatives who voted mostly on those lines. The gripes on him were on economic issues.

It's not surprising to see Gingrich, Jindal, Santorum, and Paul back in the pack. Newt and Jindal's bread and butter are on fiscal issues. Santorum lost bad in 2006. Ron Paul is a libertarian.

What's interesting is numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5.

2. Mitt Romney 74 12.40%
3. Tim Pawlenty 73 12.23%
4. Sarah Palin 72 12.06%
5. Mike Pence 71 11.89%

I thought Palin would have challenged Huckabee. I wonder if her gubernatorial resignation hurt her. I did not support that decision at all if she's running for president. I'd have no problem if she decided not to run in 2010, but if you are planning a 2012 run, finish your term that ends two years earlier. Palin has her die-hard supporters who defend everything she does and her fanatical obsessed detractors that need to check into a mental hospital, but finishing behind Mitt and Pawlenty showed something.

Mitt likes to flood people in to events to win these straw polls, so he usually does well at them. A second place finish at one of these events helps him, but he already had high name recognition and with his organization, should have been able to close the deal back in 08. The nomination was his for the taking, and frankly for whatever reason. He blew it. He lost to McCain in a republican primary (so did Huckabee). That says something, and it's not positive. It wasn't just "democrat crossovers" like many on the right complain about either.

The big winners here were two Midwesterners. Tim Pawlenty and Mike Pence. I'm glad to see these two do well. I'm strongly looking at new blood for 2012. Nobody from 08. No retreads. Pawlenty is Minnesota's governor. I like seeing that name moving up if for no other reason than this. Governors become presidents. Senators rarely do. The last sitting senator to win before Obama was Kennedy (Nixon/LBJ were senators at one time, but also VP's), and Obama beat another senator. Pawlenty has a good shot to make a move on the 08 retreads.

Mike Pence I've talked about about on this blog before. It was good to see Pence do well here as he's more known for the economic issues than social issues. Whoever is the nominee in 08 will have to unite enough of the budget hawks, anti-tax and spenders, social conservatives, libertarians, anti-federalists (often what is called federalism today is really anti-federalism), second amendment supporters, national security conservatives, law and order types, and the rest of the base, and the independents who support some, but oppose other of the base issues.

My comment when Mark Sanford wrecked his career was this. "Damn. Maybe Mike Pence will run." If Pence runs, he'll have my support. Pence fought the bailouts that killed us. When Bush and the congressional leadership destroyed the GOP credibility on economic issues that is taking so long to gain back (more due to democrats than anything else - and it's still not what it was in the mid 90's), it was Pence fighting in the trenches. In 2006, Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee proposed get this....a balanced budget. What happened to that? It got voted down by both parties, but the GOP was in control then. How many Republicans were tossed in 06 and 08? A lot. Who's still standing, in a district that Obama might have won and a district centered in a county (Delaware County - home of Ball State) that Obama did win? Mike Pence. With 65%.

It's still three years away from 2012, and a lot can change, especially with 2010 around the corner, but it is good to see new names going near the top of these 2012 lists.

The GOP's biggest obstacle to a comeback, idiot senators

First of all, I want to get this out of the way. I'm not on board yet for the 2012 Sarah Palin for president campaign. I'm still undecided, and while I like Palin, she's not my first choice among potential candidates. That aside, Palin is a big draw for the grassroots, and that rubs some insiders in the beltway the wrong way. There was a whole bunch of yapping back and forth about a big NRCC fundraiser where she attended.

This lead to a sneering catfight from DC's The Hill that reminded me from a scene from the movie Ghostbusters. From the mayor's office scene - Is this true? Yes it's true. This man has no dick.

From the Hill

Several GOP senators offered searing criticism of the Alaska governor when asked in recent interviews whether she could pose a credible challenge to President Obama in 2012.

“She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke,” said a GOP lawmaker who represents one of the southern battlegrounds of the 2012 election.

First of all, if you don't sign your name to your statement, it's a joke. This reminds me of the anyonomous coward state rep here last year over the tax increase who was all pissed off that he was being pressured by the GOP to reject the tax increase. That's why I thought of the scene from Ghostbusters. If you can't put your name behind it, then it is worthless. It's cowardly.

We'll find out in 2010 about Palin's ability to govern as decided by her constituents back home. My money on this statement was Graham, and he's a joke as far as I'm concerned.

One GOP senator questioned whether Palin has enough gravitas for voters to trust her in tough economic times.

“If the economy implodes, I don’t see her as having much of a chance,” said the lawmaker, who noted that Palin’s national political ambitions have caused her political troubles at home. “She has also taken on water up there in Alaska.”

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Sadly, the democrats had the best quote here.

Meanwhile, Democratic strategists delighted over the confusion caused by the spat.

“Oh, to be a fly on the wall during the NRCC-NRSC dinner planning meetings,” quipped a senior House Democratic political aide.

Right now we have an economy in the crapper. We have record deficits and spending. We have massive big government power grabs by Obama's goons, and you people are all bent out of shape with Palin? Do your jobs for once and try and put up some spirited opposition and alternative plans.

Once again, the US Senate, democrat and republican alike, shows the worst the government has to offer, and Obama can be tossed in that category as well. He was a senator.

Obama supporters need to know their role and shut their mouths on experience

The democrats are trying to throw out the Dan Quayle comparisons. Not even close. Barack Obama can't shine Dan Quayle's boots, let alone Sarah Palin's shoes.
I'm borrowing a lot of this information from two RedState posts with the rest from thomas.loc.gov. The Redstate posts are Obama vs Palin vs Quayle by IlGlock and Jeff Emanuel's talk of the tape.
First, on pure numbers, here is the experience factor.



Overall political experience before going on the top of the ticket.
Palin - 12 years before running for VP
Obama - 10 years before running for president.
Quayle - 11 years before campaigning for VP, 19 years total.

If you go with high level experience (governor or us senate)
Palin - 2 years of executive experience
Obama - 2 years as Junior US senator
Quayle - 7 years as Junior US Senator.

If you go with total executive experience on actually running things.
Palin - 8 years, two as governor and six as mayor.
Obama - Nothing
Quayle - 4 years as VP, nothing before then.


We all know what McCain has done in the Senate. What has Obama done in the senate? What kind of change can he bring if elected. If we go by his US Senate record, don't expect much. He hasn't done jackshit so far. He is all talk and no action. Some "change".

During this current Congress, Obama has had THREE things passed in the senate. You can find this at http://thomas.loc.gov

1. S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
2. S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
3. S.RES.600 : A resolution commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi, while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which has become known as "Freedom Summer".

In his previous Congress, we have five things.
1. S.RES.291 : A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship.
2. S.RES.516 : A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
3. S.RES.529 : A resolution designating July 13, 2006, as "National Summer Learning Day".
4. S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
5. S.3757 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building".

I can't go before 1989 on thomas, so I can't look up Quayle as a comparison, but Obama's record. That's real presidential leadership for you. Riiiight. Mike Rogers has done more than Obama has, and he's one of 435, not 100. Two bills that wern't resolutions. I don't think naming a Post office and passing a foreign aid bill on Congo are landmark bills. That's the "change" he will bring us.

Who the hell are Obama's people to attack ANYBODY's experience? Sit down and shut your mouth.

Sarah Palin for VP!!! I'm no longer holding my nose in November

Sarah Palin for VP! Great pick by Senator McCain.

This is a risky, but high reward pick for McCain. Overall, I'd give it an A- (and four years from now, an A+). I have to give McCain a lot of credit here for having the guts to make his own pick and not one a lot of the establishment was hoping for (Romney).

From a personal standpoint, Palin was my 2nd choice.....of EVERYBODY. Mark Sanford was my first and would have been the A+ pick (experience edge), but what this does with me is for the first time ever, really get me to vote FOR somebody for President/VP instead of just voting AGAINST the other people.

First, what is bad about this pick? Experience. She has slightly more experience than Obama (although it is EXECUTIVE experience). It is four years two early. That is the ONLY negative. She has 16 years of political experience, (Obama has 12 years total, four in high office counting the last three years he has done nothing but run for president), and eight years in an executive role. In between her time as mayor and governor, she was on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission until she resigned in protest over poor ethics by some of the bigwigs...including the then state GOP chair of her state. She then defeated incumbent Frank Murkowski to be governor. Eight years of executive experience is not enough to be PRESIDENT (Although it is two years more than Bush and eight years more than Obama), however this is VICE president, and a VP can afford some on the job training. McCain can show her the ropes on what she doesn't know, and her experience in executive office will help her learn quickly.

What is GOOD about this pick? Several things.

1. Real change requires real change. Obama talks about change. What has he done in the Senate outside of TALK about change? Absolutely NOTHING but piggyback off of other senators. Obama talks about cleaning up Washington. Palin HAS cleaned up political messes of others. She defeated an incumbent mayor over tax issues, and then lowered property taxes. She resigned from the Oil and Gas commission because of ethics of her own party members. She then ran for governor and took out the trash there. She fought against pork spending and passed an ethics bill. She talked, and then delivered. Currently she's pushing for energy reform in Alaska, including a new Natural Gas pipelines and fighting Congress for not drilling in ANWR to increase our oil supply here at home.

2. Solidifies a fractured base. Fiscal conservatives are important again. After Bush crapped on us for eight years, we have two people with REAL records against pork barrell spending. McCain is decent on this issue, and Palin is great on this issue. McCain has problems with trust among gun owners. Palin alleviates many of those doubts and is the most pro-2nd Amendment candidate on a major ticket since Teddy Roosevelt. You won't hear any "can I get me a huntin' license" types of blunders from Palin. She's the real thing. And on the life issue, Palin walks the walk on being pro-life more than just about anybody (although John McCain's record is quite good on that issue...he's walked the walk too and more than just by voting records). McCain came through for us with this pick.

3. The Outsider. Obama talked about change and gave us a 30 year career hack whose only claims to fame is lifting other speeches, writing a gun grabbing bill, and being a self-proclaimed foreign policy expert (how so anyway?). Outside of political junkies and Delaware, nobody knows who Joe Biden really is. Palin is the only major party candidate not to come from Washington and its 17% approval rating. Washington doesn't change Washington easily.

I didn't mention the obvious here that can cut both ways. McCain named a woman to the ticket. How will that play? I don't know. I think it can gain some votes and lose others. It doesn't effect my vote. However she's very easy on the eyes, so I won't be changing the channel on my TV set when she's on there, unlike the normal reaction I have with politicians. That can't hurt.

Would I support this pick if Todd Palin was the governor of Alaska with the same record, and if Sarah Palin was the oil rig worker and fisherman instead? Absolutely. I can say that without a shadow of a doubt.

I support people who walk the walk in their politics. It is extremely rare, and it is even rarer when one is a governor, and rarest of all when one is tapped to be VP. None walk the walk better than Governor Sarah Palin. That's why I'm no longer holding my nose this November. I'm not just voting against Obama and Biden anymore. I'm voting for Sarah Palin.