Jump to content

Palin's Future Role


Texsox

  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Palin the 'face of the new GOP'

    • Yes, she's here to stay and reshape the party
      2
    • No, a small footnote
      17
    • 50-50 depends on a little luck
      8
    • 192.60.42.100
      1


Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 05:08 PM)
thing is, i think this woman is hell-bent on power. she'll run in 2012.

 

I don't think she would win the Republican nomination. Guess it depends on competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:58 PM)
pageant walking consultant.

 

 

 

To be honest though, she was thrown in over her head in this situation and the media ate her alive, but she is a very admirable politician especially considering what she has done in her own state. She battled her party, reformed governement, and helped her fellow citizens gain some income from the oil conglomerates that have been exploiting their region for a long time. There are many many less competent politicians in Washington as we speak.

So she's redistributed the wealth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 07:09 PM)
I have a very hard time believing Dean did anything to deserge credit for the turn around. It's pretty simple to me: Mix (1) very well-spoken young politician (boosting interest in all elections, not just the prez one) and (2) an old moron 2-term president that nearly everyone believes (either rightly or wrongly) has blown up the country and it's future (causing an association of all other people with "R" next to their name - 6 years of a Republican congress that did nothing but back him hasn't helped).

 

Everything about the shift from Republican to Dem in the last 2 years is a result of Republican's becoming more and more extreme. I have a feeling that when government becomes all Dem, nothing will get done, as the extreme left and moderate left battles it out. They're Dems afterall (see: last 2 years).

 

I'll give this 8 years tops before the country is back to true Republican values - smaller government, less spending, lower taxes.

 

Dean had everything to do with this. Dean was instrumental in working hard to get a candidate in every district in Congress, a candidate in every Senate race. Dean went and helped the Democratic party start working with the people who make up the party, not the people who "funded" the party. Dean brought an idea to the DNC that had long not been the case - he wanted to see every state matter for the party. And by and large, these reasons are why states that shouldn't be in play, are in play.

 

Obama became the nominee, in part because he represents the Dean wing of the Democratic party. If Clinton got the nod, Dean wouldn't be the chair, and we wouldn't really be talking about a hugely expanded playing field. Because that's not how her wing of the party operates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 05:32 PM)
Lots of people end up running. Considerably fewer have a real shot. But who knows what happens in 2012.

I'd put Huck and Romney well ahead of Palin on the 2012 list. But a lot can change in 23 years. Even though I predicted in 2004 that Obama would run for president some day (damn I wish I had audio from my election day radio coverage), but I didnt think 2008. Maybe 2012, but not 2008. Once we hit 2006, I saw ther was a real chance he might run. n the end, he did... and won the primary and probably will the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 04:11 PM)
I agree. The party has to get back to the middle. For the same reasons the Dems lost in 2000, the Repubs lost in this one. Extremism (either fiscally or socially) is not a winning strategy. I've been ashamed at what my chosen party has been the last 6-7 years.

The Dems were running as fiscal extremists in 2000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:36 PM)
The Dems were running as fiscal extremists in 2000?

 

Guess it depends on how you define it. I remember Gore running on a platform of balancing the budget and keeping taxes as they were (i.e. not cutting them). He also hit hard on socially extreme policies (national healthcare, environmental reform, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:30 PM)
Dean had everything to do with this. Dean was instrumental in working hard to get a candidate in every district in Congress, a candidate in every Senate race. Dean went and helped the Democratic party start working with the people who make up the party, not the people who "funded" the party. Dean brought an idea to the DNC that had long not been the case - he wanted to see every state matter for the party. And by and large, these reasons are why states that shouldn't be in play, are in play.

 

Obama became the nominee, in part because he represents the Dean wing of the Democratic party. If Clinton got the nod, Dean wouldn't be the chair, and we wouldn't really be talking about a hugely expanded playing field. Because that's not how her wing of the party operates.

 

I guess I didn't realize the Dem party was that bad before he took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 04:55 PM)
I guess I didn't realize the Dem party was that bad before he took over.

Especially after 2000, 2002 and 2004 were just a mess for the Dem party. The party leaders didn't care about party building at all, they just cared about whether or not they won their next election. That was a big driver for dem votes for the Iraq war, for example. They kept doing these votes to try to "Take national security off the table" when we were involved in 2 wars. They were scared of the south. They were scared of having Bush show up and campaign in their district. A few pollsters and the people around them seemed to be running almost everything. The Dean campaign in 03 literally started as a rejection of that, and that's why the money started pouring in for him in late 03 from the online donor system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 06:57 PM)
Especially after 2000, 2002 and 2004 were just a mess for the Dem party. The party leaders didn't care about party building at all, they just cared about whether or not they won their next election. That was a big driver for dem votes for the Iraq war, for example. They kept doing these votes to try to "Take national security off the table" when we were involved in 2 wars. They were scared of the south. They were scared of having Bush show up and campaign in their district. A few pollsters and the people around them seemed to be running almost everything. The Dean campaign in 03 literally started as a rejection of that, and that's why the money started pouring in for him in late 03 from the online donor system.

Yea. Dean can be a little rough or crass, but he's done a great job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 07:55 PM)
I guess I didn't realize the Dem party was that bad before he took over.

 

Dean did really one thing that was wonderful and I can't believe didn't exist previous to 2005. He opened a DNC office in every state and paid for at least three staffers in each state. This is the biggest reason why the DNC didn't have a ton of money to spend this year on ads, they'd already spent it building and strengthening the party the past three years so that the DCCC and the DSCC had new and better places to spend their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...