I am not the one to predict the future, countryboy, you need a fierce partisan to do that (like any Joan of Arc acolyte, for instance, he will tell you with perfect confidence that she is going to win the nomination and then sweep all 50 states to win the election in 2012).
So I really couldn’t say if she will be another Reagan or Goldwater. Based upon what we know so far, and based upon today’s conditions, if nothing changes, then she definitely will be another Goldwater.
But a lot can change between now and then. Joan of Arc may suddenly become erudite, knowledgeable, articulate, charming, charismatic etc. and start to appeal to the broad population, rather than only to dirty old men. Or we may have double dip recession and economy maybe in the tank come 2012. Then we may have 1980 all over again.
But as of now, based upon what we know now, I would say that she probably will be another Goldwater, that we may be looking at Obama landslide if she is the Republican nominee.
Why do the Democrats always make an issue when Sarah Palin speaks, if your not interested just ignore her' I do think she will be there to support who ever the frontrunner will be. Sarah Palin taking the Republican Presidential today would just guarantee Obama another term.
Thanks for your opinion on that. I've never considered myself to be a dirty old man, but hey, I guess I've been called worse names.
So we may be looking at an Obama landslide, eh? What if the bloom has come off the rose for all those starry-eyed, left wingnut, time-for-magical-change groupies that have begun to realize that their saviour is nothing more than a human being, making human mistakes, and not getting much of anything done?
Do you think any of them might swing over to the "right" side and give their vote(s) to Sarah? At least she has a track record for getting things done.
YouTube - Bill OReilly quotThe Left Is Afraid Of Sarah Palinquot
The consensus of opinion around the water cooler this morning was that Americans will vote for big boobs rather than big ears in 2012. But who cares because the world will end before she takes office.
The only thing that frightens me about her is her bone crunching jaws.
I really don't get the Palin-Jeanne D'Arc analogy. Don't people know that St. Joan was burned alive?
Why do the Democrats always make an issue when Sarah Palin speaks, if your not interested just ignore her' I do think she will be there to support who ever the frontrunner will be. Sarah Palin taking the Republican Presidential today would just guarantee Obama another term.
Can we expect her to be wearing skimpy cheer leader outfits, can we, can we!!!!?????
Will the Republicans be able to pick a viable candidate before the next election from the field of criminal idiots that are running? Kinda like trying to pick a booger out of your nose with an amputated wrist. Only a Republican moron would want the job before a Democrat can fix Bush's mess.
Why ignore her when one can ridicule her, ironsides? She provides plenty of fodder for comedy, like Dan Quayle did. Indeed, before the election, I expressed the wish, I almost wished that McCain/Palin get elected. Imagine how much material that would have given comics (or indeed to everybody) with Sarah Palin in the news day after day. Dan Quayle would have paled in comparison.
As to her supporting whoever the Republican nominee is, that depends upon who the nominee is.
It was clear from the New York Congressional election that Tea Party supporters and Palin will not support a Republican candidate if he doesn't not come from the far right.
So if Republicans nominate somebody like Huckabee, I see Palin supporting him. If they nominate Romney, forget it. There is no way Tea Party and Palin will support him unless he moves sharply to the right (and then he may have problems with the electorate at large).
Democrats don't have the smarts to get anything passed. They messed up, had their chance and blew it. Their only hope of sticking around is getting something passed the majority of voters like before November. And YES you can!
Democrats cannot get anything passed because Republicans have 41 votes in Senate and they block anything Democrats try to pass.
However, you can be sure that Democrats will remember, and when Senate goes into Republican hands (as will inevitably happen at some stage), Republicans won’t be able to get anything passed either.
American political system is broken, big time.
Any good legislator can get something passed thru opposition, that is why they have back room deals. They still have a majority for some things, maybe even the health bill after all they did have a couple of Independents and one Republican. Obama just has to compromise a little.
Democrats cannot get anything passed because Republicans have 41 votes in Senate and they block anything Democrats try to pass.
However, you can be sure that Democrats will remember, and when Senate goes into Republican hands (as will inevitably happen at some stage), Republicans won’t be able to get anything passed either.
American political system is broken, big time.
That's ridiculous - it's the same system that's been around for a long time.
Sure the system has been around for a long time, but it has been abused only in recent years.
Filibuster used to be rarely used in the past. These days it is used for each and every bill, without exception. During Bush era, Democrats used filibuster routinely, now Republicans are doing the same.
There are things that are done traditionally, if one disregards tradition, the system breaks down.
Look at our system. Senate has fully as many powers and House does, yet senate chooses not to exercise the powers, because they are not elected. But suppose tomorrow they decided to exert those powers (reject the laws passed by the House, propose laws on its own, get into contentious fights with the House etc.), then what will happen? Canadian political system will have broken down.
Or consider the Notwithstanding Clause. It is generally accepted that it must be used sparingly; only in emergencies (federal government has never used it).
Now, suppose a PM with majority in the House decides to use it every time Courts rule against him. We will essentially have a dictatorship by the PM; the system will have broken down.
It is the same thing with the filibuster in the Senate. It was a tool to be used sparingly. In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have been using it as a matter of routine. The system has broken down.
Interestingly, when Republicans were in control, they were thinking of getting rid of the filibuster. It wouldn’t surprise me if they do get rid of the filibuster the next time they control the Senate. And that may be a good thing.
I have a feeling that you wouldn't be complaining as much of a "system breakdown" if liberals were behind the reasons for it. In that scenario, it would simply be an effective utlization of the processes available, right?
Democrats don't have the smarts to get anything passed. They messed up, had their chance and blew it. Their only hope of sticking around is getting something passed the majority of voters like before November. And YES you can!
I don't know what you mean by that. But in Canada, if a Liberal PM were to use Notwithstanding Clause to override a court decision, I would be vehemently opposed to it.
Any democracy, any system of government depends upon some traditions, not everything is written down in black and white (perhaps it should be). If somebody unilaterally disregards the traditions, that leads to the breakdown of the system.
I don't know what you mean by that. But in Canada, if a Liberal PM were to use Notwithstanding Clause to override a court decision, I would be vehemently opposed to it.
Any democracy, any system of government depends upon some traditions, not everything is written down in black and white (perhaps it should be). If somebody unilaterally disregards the traditions, that leads to the breakdown of the system.
Tradition, that is a very British thing used many times in the House of Commons and something Canada also tries to follow. Filibuster is part of most political systems, and at times a very powerful tool. We may not like it when it is being used against something we think important, but it is what it is. A "Liberal" PM, even a President or Congress can go against Supreme Court decisions. In order to do that the law must be changed and even then that new law must be approved by the Supreme Court. To quote judge Dredd "The Law is the Law".
"Democrats cannot get anything passed because Republicans have 41 votes in Senate and they block anything Democrats try to pass."
It would be well to remember that for over a year the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House.
Sorry, DasSleeper, I should have indicated that my quote was that of none other than SirJosephPorter, in post #102.
Someday, someone will have to post a tutorial on how to quote and multi quote....maybe I will but not written by me
Actually, that's not a bad idea...I have a bit of trouble figuring out the multi-quote thing...