Palin for 2012?

[4dmin]

Is Palin what reps need for 2012?

discuss.

[Alan®]

Maybe. Although if her and Romney ran next go around I would have a tough decision in the primaries because I really like Romney.

[Hulud]

i hope not. she is horrid. her policies are shit.

[The Creeper]

Palin's only chance at being president was being McCains vice and him dieing. Period.

[Elbow]

^Truth. She is a total moron, nothing to even stick up for her about, she's just that dumb, you can't even have an educated discussion about her.

[Vteckidd]

too early to tell

I think it mostly depends on what the republicans define their party as from here. They have to figure out what the party stands for and go from there.

I dont see Palin running again, i think Huckabee or some unknown.

IMO if the Dems somehow fuck up BAD , i think the real question is who is the independant going to be running. It would be a prime time for them to put a good candidate up because the country will be so tired of the DEMS and REPUBs

[BanginJimmy]

way too early to tell. If Obama stays very popular the Repubs will waste another 4 years by putting up another lame duck canidate like Ron Paul. I like Paul, but he will never garner significant national support.

If Obama cannot deliver then the repubs are going to come after him with a solid canidate. I really like Huckabee, but I wouldnt complain about Romney either.

[4dmin]

i personally think palin is way out of her league to even think about attempting to run for it. her being on the ticket was too much for her; debates/interviews showed this.

i think reps won't go far right next go around unless obama really fucks up.

[BanginJimmy]

i think reps won't go far right next go around unless obama really fucks up.

If they dont go far right, Obama will again regardless of his performance. The average voter no long has confidance in the republican party and rightly so. Unless there is a top to bottom change that rivals the republican revolution back in 1980, republicans have 8 more years of dwindling power, not just 4.

[Spektrewing386]

Palin is what dragged the republican ticket down. Putting her on the ticket made a lot of voters vote the other way.

[Total_Blender]

Yep, I think Palin was selected to appease the far right, but she drove away the center leaning voters. Had McCain gone with a more center leaning VP like Lieberman he might have fared better.

My hope for the republicans is that they can move away from religious zealotry and sabre rattling and field a candidate who is actually a fiscal conservative and a defender of personal freedom. More of a Barry Goldwater than a George W. Bush. Ron Paul would be a good choice, especially combined with a democratic congress.

[BKgen®]

we shall see. maybe she can get her hands on a copy of "Being President: For Dummys".

[Vteckidd]

Ron Paul is REALLY a nut if you look at it. i cant see people who voted for OBama actually agreeing with anything Paul says.

Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.[2] His nickname "Dr. No"[25] reflects both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[34] One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[159] found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002 (wherein "conservative" is defined by a strict reading of the Constitution, rather than its common definition).[160] Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[161] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. He supports free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty;[162] he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.

Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian school economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland)[47] on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[26] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.[25] He has pledged never to raise taxes[163] and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels;[92][164] he would also rely on excise taxes and tariffs. He would eliminate most federal government agencies as unnecessary bureaucracies. Paul also sharply opposes inflation as a longterm erosion of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power due to its lack of commodity backing. Paul "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard",[165] but instead has pushed to legitimize gold and silver as legal tender and to remove the sales tax on them. He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve System for many reasons, such as believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply, and being aware of its allegedly unconstitutional and secret origins.[166] He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security to "protect the system for everyone".

Paul strongly supports Constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, jury nullification, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national ID card, domestic surveillance, and the draft. Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not directly found in the Constitution. Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life",[167] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[168] and believes regulation or ban[169] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[170][171] (He says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception;[172] his pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters." [173] Paul believes that Secularism in America is a "war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."[174]

He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty,[170] of education,[175] and of marriage, and he would revise the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to focus on disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).[176][177] A free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. He also opposes the federal War on Drugs, desiring the states to decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana.[178][179] He agrees that marijuana is only illegal because it can't be taxed. Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement in and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.[180] He is an outspoken proponent for ballot access and numerous election law reforms which would allow more voter control.[181]

I mean i understand what he is saying, but the constitution was written 200+ years ago. THere is no way our founding fathers could have fathomed what the world would be today.

Govt spending is an issue, but not approving it because the constitution didnt expressly say so i think is a bad move

LOL hes more pro-life than Palin

[okra1981]

Palin wouldn't have enough experience in 2012 either, not enough to counteract her being so completely crap at any question except about energy. The RNC could doll her up and throw her out there again in four years, but it would be a dumb move on their part. It would make more sense, if she is the great white hope, to use her in the same situation we have here, instead of trying to throw out an already strong sitting President running for reelection (if, hopefully, Obama is sitting strong).
It took the strongest Democrat that we'd seen in thirty years to knock Bush out of office after only one term. You have to admit that Clinton was about as slick as you can get when it comes to running a race.

[ironchef]

Goddamn it, Palin just pisses me off. If only she wasn't a VPilf....

"She didn't know Africa was a continent" I mean seriously? She didn't know whos in NAFTA? Seriously? Sigh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

[Vteckidd]

Yeah i suspect youll see alot more of that coming out. Thats why i think Palin wont be in 2012.

In her defense, she was kinda thrust into the race, and i can see her just wanting to do it her way, and the Mccain GOP Campaign not letting her

[Nex]

be funny if she loses again but at least she gets to go on another shopping spree LOL.

[1slowLt1]

No way in hell. I think she wouldnt run just for humility issues. I liked her at first, thought she would sway some of the hillary voters, then came the "interview".

[Vteckidd]

LOL FUNNIEST SHIT I HAVE SEEN

[alpine_aw11]

Ron Paul is REALLY a nut if you look at it. i cant see people who voted for OBama actually agreeing with anything Paul says.


I mean i understand what he is saying, but the constitution was written 200+ years ago. THere is no way our founding fathers could have fathomed what the world would be today.

Govt spending is an issue, but not approving it because the constitution didnt expressly say so i think is a bad move

LOL hes more pro-life than Palin

The basic idea of what our founding fathers wanted in our government would be far more efficient, and serve the better interests of the people imo. Ron Paul stretches it sometimes, but with him and a balanced, moderate congress I think we would be in much better shape than we are now.

[Kevykev]

i still can't see why people are speculating with the 2012 deal. I can only see a small percentage of Mccain supporters supporting Palin in terms of the actual presidency. I can see her getting her own talk show before the white house...which will still be WHITE in 2012

LOL FUNNIEST SHIT I HAVE SEEN

hahahaha K.I Status

[Total_Blender]

Ron Paul stretches it sometimes, but with him and a balanced, moderate congress I think we would be in much better shape than we are now.

I think we almost need someone like Ron Paul with the majority the Dems have in Congress now and with Pelosi as the Speaker of the House. RP wouldn't stand for all the deficit spending bailout/stimulus crap going on nowadays. I don't agree with RP being ardently pro-life but at least he's basing that stance on his career as an OB-GYN and not on religious fanaticism. If we had to elect a Republican I'd rather have elected him over McCain.

[Jaimecbr900]

Paul, I'm going to run in 2012 and YOU are going to be my VP choice.......word?

[4dmin]

Paul, I'm going to run in 2012 and YOU are going to be my VP choice.......word?

bahhhh that would be a fucked up ticket...

so whats your stance on abortion president jaime? hell no... well your VP pick says he loves scrambled eggs

honestly i like the nextel commercials w/ the fireman in congress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6DORwBzuA

[alpine_aw11]

I think we almost need someone like Ron Paul with the majority the Dems have in Congress now and with Pelosi as the Speaker of the House. RP wouldn't stand for all the deficit spending bailout/stimulus crap going on nowadays. I don't agree with RP being ardently pro-life but at least he's basing that stance on his career as an OB-GYN and not on religious fanaticism. If we had to elect a Republican I'd rather have elected him over McCain.

Yea RP would be good to counteract Congress as of now. I am pro-choice, but Paul believes it is purely a states rights issue. He wouldn't let his personal beliefs interfere with what is right as far as lawmaking goes.

[BB6dohcvtec]

Romney or it will be another bust for the Republican. I vote Dem. but I actually liked what I haerd coming from Mitt def should go at it again in 2012.

[VIP Style]

2012 is miles away, people need to focus more on whats at hand with our current president. besides palin was not even qualified to be a vice president, shes just not that smart man.

[twinj]

LOL FUNNIEST SHIT I HAVE SEEN

I lirl @ that.

[Ran]

Ron Paul is REALLY a nut if you look at it. i cant see people who voted for OBama actually agreeing with anything Paul says.

He is right about one thing though, we need to GTFO of the United Nations. What a joke that is.

[Tiff-O-Bitties]

I can't stand listening to the woman talk, much less run a country...

Who knows.. I think it's too early to tell as well...

[twinj]

Sorry, but just the thought is comical.

[streetsupra8]

I'll vote for her, just to see her on T.V. all the time. She F-N Hott!!