Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sarah Palin's PAC raised $1.4 million in final six months of 2009

Sarah PAC, the political action committee of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, collected $1.4 million over the final six months of 2009, a solid -- if not spectacular -- total that demonstrates her fundraising capacity as she mulls a bid for national office in 2012.

"We are thrilled," said Palin senior adviser Meg Stapleton about the fundraising total. "Common sense Americans know the direction we need to take this country and that Sarah Palin will be instrumental in taking us there this year."

For the year, Palin raised roughly $2.1 million through Sarah PAC and ended the year with $900,000 in the bank. She donated $64,600 to candidates and party committees.

That relatively high burn rate is due to an expansion of the organization's staff, according to those familiar with its operations. (Remember that with Palin out of office -- she resigned the governorship in July 2009 -- her PAC is her only political and policy vehicle.)

While Palin's six-month total is roughly comparable to the $1.3 million Minnesota. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) raised in just the final three months of the year through his Freedom First PAC and approximately $800,000 less than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC collected in 2009, her aides suggested she did very little active fundraising.

Sarah PAC sent no direct mail -- a potential treasure trove of small-dollar donations for the former governor who is beloved by the grassroots of the party -- and raised the majority of her money via the Internet and small events. For the 11 months that Sarah PAC has existed, she has received contributions from more than 14,000 donors.

Her aides also note that she spent much of the second half of the year writing her memoir -- "Going Rogue" and touring the country in support of it.

"We are excited as we feel that we've just begun to tap the Governor's support," said Sarah PAC treasurer Tim Crawford.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 30, 2010; 5:38 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Samuel Alito's and "not true", Senate race handicapping and more in the "Live Fix" chat
Next: Democratic primaries in Illinois turn nasty in final days

Comments

Huh? READ it? Why would you want to do that? Oh, that's right, it's supposed to be a book. Easy to forget that.

Seriously, mike, you don't *read* books by these people like Palin and Hannity, you're just supposed to buy them. Think of it as paying union dues.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I bought the book but haven't read it yet.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 1, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: Jimmy-Dork claims he bought ten copies of Palin’s with-book. I guess that’s

1) one for the right side of the coffee table
2) one for the left side of the coffee table
3) one for the left nightstand
4) one for the right nightstand (where he keeps his “wife”)
5) one for the toilet tank top
6) two for the car (one in front, one in back)
7) one for the laundry room
8) two doorstops
----------------------------------
New way for Mrs. Palin to raise money. Each book has a Pay Per View sensor.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 1, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: Jimmy-Dork claims he bought ten copies of Palin’s with-book.  I guess that’s
 
1)       one for the right side of the coffee table
2)       one for the left side of the coffee table
3)       one for the left nightstand
4)       one for the right nightstand (where he keeps his “wife”)
5)       one for the toilet tank top
6)       two for the car (one in front, one in back)
7)       one for the laundry room
8)       two doorstops
 
Total. DeVOtion.  Total. DeVOtion. Total. DeVOtion …

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Its great that Sarah continues to raise money. Is it her money that is being used in Ohio to fund Letohiovote?

Posted by: horsehead552000 | February 1, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

The REAL question is not whether JakeD aka Mr. Dort, esq. has seen time in a courtroom. The REAL question is why Jake and his aliases didn't get any of the free books passed out by Mrs. Palin. He was paying $10 and she was passing out FREE books?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 1, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Imagine someone who retained "Jake" Dort for a criminal defense and found himself being defended by someone as logically challenged as the "supernatural erosion" guy.

I don't buy it either. I bet the real James Dort has no idea he's the subject on an online identity theft by a disturbed teenager

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"Courtroom? Who could ever believe he saw the inside of a courtroom? As a lawyer, anyway."

My money is on a commitment hearing.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | February 1, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

Courtroom? Who could ever believe he saw the inside of a courtroom? As a lawyer, anyway.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 1, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin's fundraising committee spent $63,000 buying copies of her memoir, "Going Rogue," in November and December of last year, ABC News reports. Palin directed the committee to buy the books to send to donors."
---------------------------------
Wait, wait...that's where the $64,000 campaign contribution went?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 1, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

There's a new thread about these PAC fundraising numbers (including Huckabee's dismal performance). A better measure for comparison, however, would be PAC + book sales + Fox News contracts.
---------------------------------
An even better measure for comparison, Romney adds # of LDS churchmembers and
Huckabee adds # of Southern Baptists,
multiplied by the number of Bible Belt States.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 1, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I took advantage of the $10 per book deal, plus free shipping, to send copies to lots of people I know the day it came out. BTW: even getting those books at cost" does not equal 2.8 million copies ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 1, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Sounds more like a pyrite mine, "Jake" Dort.

Pailn accepts donations from right wingers hoping she'll promote their causes, she spends it to puff her book sales figures, and there go her poor dumb brute donors, making excuses fir her.

It's all about celebrity.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Now that Palin's with-book is already in clearance bins fir $4, alongside all the 2010 calendars, I wonder how those rubes feel, the ones who prepaid full price and are still waiting for it?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Gov. Palin "used" approximately $50,000 for books / postage to make far more than $50,000 ($100 donors got autographed copies). I told you all about this when it was being offered. Sounds like a goldmine to me.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 1, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of book sales, it turns out Palin used some of the money her dopey followers contributed to her PAC to buy COPIES OF HER OWN BOOK. LOL

So much for Palin book sales meaning much, jokey jake.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/01/sarah-palin-using-pac-to-buy-her-own-book/

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | February 1, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Never mind simple logic, you can't even *count*

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Careful with the personal attacks (you might get banned, for the FIFTH time ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 1, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

A better measure for comparison, however, would be PAC + book sales + Fox News contracts. In case you hadn't heard, Romney's book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness" is scheduled for publication on March 2, 2010; an 18-state promotional book tour is planned. Then we can compare numbers.

==

heh heh heh

how'd you make out in the courtroom with this sort of "logic?"

palin book sales reflect celebrity, not policy influence and not electability. A palin candidacy would make Mondale's look like a squeaker. You are one of the most delusional people alive

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

There's a new thread about these PAC fundraising numbers (including Huckabee's dismal performance). A better measure for comparison, however, would be PAC + book sales + Fox News contracts. In case you hadn't heard, Romney's book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness" is scheduled for publication on March 2, 2010; an 18-state promotional book tour is planned. Then we can compare numbers.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 1, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"You are making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I don't agree with. And I have to sit here and listen to them."


- Quote from Obama at a meeting in which Obama was attempting to demonstrate how bipartisan he is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 1, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

37th:

Something

of

SUBSTANCE!

.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 1, 2010 6:33 AM | Report abuse

I don't know who the worst is


Posted by: 37thand0street | February 1, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

I thought you said that I was 37th ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 1, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


You are the worst - why don't you just concentrate on posting to the topics at hand.


Leave the other posters alone.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 1, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

the Republicans were there with proposals

==

thanks for the laugh

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Instead of actually trying to get something done, Obama really didn't - Obama was more concerned with the tv cameras and making some points which everyone doesn't agree with.


Obama cut off a Congressman three times and complained that he "had to sit there and listen to this stuff - which he doesn't agree with half of"


WELL DID OBAMA GO TO BALTIMORE TO HEAR ONLY THINGS THAT HE AGREES WITH ???


The idea that Obama spoke for 70 minutes on Wednesday, then gave the opening speech on Friday in Baltimore - after all that Having Obama "listen to" about 45 seconds of statements from a Congressman which prefaced a question - after all that seems like Obama made a pretty obnoxious remark.


Obama says he wants ideas - the Republicans were there with proposals - Obama didn't see too interested.


Obama said - I will look at them.


Obama's commitment to be bipartisan - was a commitment he made to the American People - not to the Republicans.


AND that commitment meant that Obama was pledging to adhere to CENTRIST POLICIES ARRIVED AT BY COMPROMISE -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 1, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

The Obama Charade:


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 1, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

   
drindl


I guess you are talking about yourself and broadwayjoe.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

well now, we have a blog which is down to two very, um, challenged readers...

sad for the wapo... how the mighty have fallen.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Suzy

I will make sure from now on I tri-post.

Thank you for seeing the error of my ways.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Charade:


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.


.
Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I have a yacht and I post with a satellite modum - I could use my iphone too, if I wanted to.

ahhh ahhhh haaaaa.

I have three girls in bikinis here too.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse
==

HEY CC
ANY PLANS TO CLEAN THIS SH|T UP?
DIDN'T THINK SO, YOU PUTZ

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

repost: it's not only for 37th anymore

Let's explore James Dort's weak argument: that Palin will increase in voter esteem in the next three years like Obama did.

Obama in February of 2006: gifted orator, accomplished scholar, stunningly gifted campaigner; organized and disciplined in all his work.  A man to watch. Not very well known but no negatives to speak of and lots of positives.  A man on the ascent, with better days ahead.

Palin in February of 2010: widely perceived to be an intellectual lightweight, as outrightly stupid by many, and providing nothing for people who believe otherwise to work with.  Disorganized, no notable executive talent, given to blowing up under pressure, resoundingly viewed negatively by more than FOUR FIFTHS of the electorate.  Passionately revered by motley movement of angry racists in increasing disarray, and whose fortunes are already waning.   Known compulsive liar, long history of abused power in office, ignorant and proud of it.

Need I go on?  There's no comparison.  Please, GOP, nominate this ditz so we can bury you forever.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

well now, we have a blog which is down to two very, um, challenged readers...

sad for the wapo... how the mighty have fallen.

==

this place was never that good, not when discussion was prompted by Cillizza's mediocre entries. It was only good when there was good discussion but the two trolls have ended that. Most have given up in disgust and the remainders can't get a word in over the idiot posts from the two trolls.

And there's Cillizza, like some Japanese soldier marooned on an island not knowing the war ended 40 years ago, moaning about posters who have the temerity to call out racism.

I guess he's happy how it's turned out: the trolls are all Republicans. 75 IQ or 150 IQ, who cares? Long as he gets face time with famous people he feels like a player.

He'll never take out the trash.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Take your own advice, idiot child

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing more to say about your object if desire, mr. dort. Palin is an idiot, only you, CC and a few hundred teabaggers care if she lives or dies. You make us laugh we you defend her and that really is the alpha and omega of the topic "Sarah Palin.". In 2012 it'll be "Sarah who?"

Posts on other topics are welcome.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers


Why don't you post something of substance, instead of concentrating on other posters.

THANK YOU

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

37th, perhaps we should call you 38 since that is how many times you have posted here since this afternoon, you need to turn that finger around.

at least

you are

laying

off

the CAPS LOCK.

.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 31, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

lukecrowley:

There's nothing in that article about Sarah Palin.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I read an interesting article on this topic on a new blog by a Iraq War veteran. From what I've read apparently David Bellavia is nominated for the Medal of Honor. A friend recommended his book "House to House: An Epic Memoir of War" and it was the best book about this conflict. His blog is interesting too.

www.DavidBellavia.com

Posted by: lukecrowley | January 31, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

The 37th / Suzy troll isn't even trying to be relevant or sensible, his only purpose us making discussion impossible.

Yet CC never even mentions this t-urd as one of the problem posters. Quality discussion is long dead here, while CC does his own blog
clog with the happy Palin sh•t

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

drindl


I guess you are talking about yourself and broadwayjoe.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

well now, we have a blog which is down to two very, um, challenged readers...

sad for the wapo... how the mighty have fallen.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Suzy

I will make sure from now on I tri-post.

Thank you for seeing the error of my ways.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Charade:


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I have a yacht and I post with a satellite modum - I could use my iphone too, if I wanted to.

ahhh ahhhh haaaaa.

I have three girls in bikinis here too.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat:

At least ONE of them finally believes I own a boat and post from an iPhone ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Instead of actually trying to get something done, Obama really didn't - Obama was more concerned with the tv cameras and making some points which everyone doesn't agree with.


Obama cut off a Congressman three times and complained that he "had to sit there and listen to this stuff - which he doesn't agree with half of"


WELL DID OBAMA GO TO BALTIMORE TO HEAR ONLY THINGS THAT HE AGREES WITH ???


The idea that Obama spoke for 70 minutes on Wednesday, then gave the opening speech on Friday in Baltimore - after all that Having Obama "listen to" about 45 seconds of statements from a Congressman which prefaced a question - after all that seems like Obama made a pretty obnoxious remark.


Obama says he wants ideas - the Republicans were there with proposals - Obama didn't see too interested.


Obama said - I will look at them.


Obama's commitment to be bipartisan - was a commitment he made to the American People - not to the Republicans.


AND that commitment meant that Obama was pledging to adhere to CENTRIST POLICIES ARRIVED AT BY COMPROMISE -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup

Ask Broadwayjoe and the people in the room with him - I think they do it all the time.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Charade:


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

37, when you bought that new super-duper dual processor PC, it wasn't intended for dual posting. Just wanted to let you know.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

If we had a Parliamentary system, Obama's program failed - it would be time to dissolve the House of Representatives, have a new election - and throw Obama out.

Time to go back to Hyde Park.

Instead, we have to go through three more years of the Obama Charade - telling us that he wants bipartisanship, post-racial policies and transparency - and to be tough on terrorism.

AND the Country has to "sit through" Obama's actions being completely different from his words and commitments TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

GGEEEESSSSHHH - it is the American People who have to "sit through" Obama and all these silly things he has been trying to do -


giving a terrorist a lawyer.

It has been reported that the terrorist actually said there were more attacks on the way - and before the questioners could get the details, Obama sent in the lawyer who told the terrorist to shut up.

UNBELIEVABLE SET OF EVENTS - AND OBAMA WAS PROBABLY ON THE GOLF COURSE THE WHOLE TIME AND HE GAVE THESE ORDERS FROM A GOLF CART BETWEEN HOLES.

Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE. If someone wrote a book of fiction about obama's first term, it would never be published, no editor whould think that a US President could be so stupid and out of touch.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

If we had a Parliamentary system, Obama's program failed - it would be time to dissolve the House of Representatives, have a new election - and throw Obama out.

Time to go back to Hyde Park.

Instead, we have to go through three more years of the Obama Charade - telling us that he wants bipartisanship, post-racial policies and transparency - and to be tough on terrorism.

AND the Country has to "sit through" Obama's actions being completely different from his words and commitments TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

GGEEEESSSSHHH - it is the American People who have to "sit through" Obama and all these silly things he has been trying to do -


giving a terrorist a lawyer.

It has been reported that the terrorist actually said there were more attacks on the way - and before the questioners could get the details, Obama sent in the lawyer who told the terrorist to shut up.

UNBELIEVABLE SET OF EVENTS - AND OBAMA WAS PROBABLY ON THE GOLF COURSE THE WHOLE TIME AND HE GAVE THESE ORDERS FROM A GOLF CART BETWEEN HOLES.

Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE. If someone wrote a book of fiction about obama's first term, it would never be published, no editor whould think that a US President could be so stupid and out of touch.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I can hear Mr Cillizza: "Let's see what everybody is commenting about now. Yep, I knew it - pee and poo. I love my blog."

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.


____________________________________


Yea, well if Obama did not go to Baltimore to listen to the other side, what did he go there for ???


It became a situation in which Obama felt he had to scold the Republicans, and smack down every point they tried to make.


THAT is not bipartisanship -


How much more can one see that Obama's words are TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS OWN ACTIONS ???


.

_______________________________

After Obama's performance on Friday in Baltimore, Obama still does not understand bipartisanship


Rep Peter Roskam - saying he knew Obama from Springfield and honestly telling Obama he has not been bipartisan.


It really is amazing, how this whole thing has played out.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

To Everyone


Can you think of something else to post other than what has been posted from 5:41 to 5:48 ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I've dealt with twins in diapers. Neither poo nor pee fazes me.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2010 5:48 PM

Great! You shouldn't have any problems with liberals. Practice makes perfect.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC really got out there with the cheerleading on Obama's trip to see the Republicans


However, the people I talk to really didn't like Obama's attitude.


MSNBC might be saying that Obama was able to smack down everything the Republicans said, but the people I have spoken to believe Obama had some snide remarks which did not help - and Obama really did miss an opportunity to make some real progress.


Instead of actually trying to get something done, Obama really didn't - Obama was more concerned with the tv cameras and making some points which everyone doesn't agree with.


Obama cut off a Congressman three times and complained that he "had to sit there and listen to this stuff - which he doesn't agree with half of"


WELL DID OBAMA GO TO BALTIMORE TO HEAR ONLY THINGS THAT HE AGREES WITH ???


The idea that Obama spoke for 70 minutes on Wednesday, then gave the opening speech on Friday in Baltimore - after all that Having Obama "listen to" about 45 seconds of statements from a Congressman which prefaced a question - after all that seems like Obama made a pretty obnoxious remark.

Obama says he wants ideas - the Republicans were there with proposals - Obama didn't see too interested.


Obama said - I will look at them.


Obama's commitment to be bipartisan - was a commitment he made to the American People - not to the Republicans.


AND that commitment meant that Obama was pledging to adhere to CENTRIST POLICIES ARRIVED AT BY COMPROMISE -


NOT jamming far-left big-government programs.


This is the kind of substance that the American people see - and the kind of substance that is not going to be easily papered over with some words by Obama.

The American People feel that Obama promised one thing - and attempted to do something totally different.


This is a credibility problem - it is a trust problem.


Obama's answers in Baltimore ONLY CONFIRMED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT OBAMA'S PROBLEMS ARE.


Obama didn't make any progress - so what, Obama took some questions.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I've dealt with twins in diapers. Neither poo nor pee fazes me.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

You ARE the poo, Ditzy.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The absent posters are doing well. Just found another pond to play in. Too much pee in this one at the moment.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2010 5:41 PM


Watch out! There's alligators in that other pond. Worse yet, there could be a lot of liberals too.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Even you're embarrassed, 37? I would be too.


Ditzy, you already did a watermelon 'joke' just today.... alzheimers setting in?

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.

____________________________________

Yea, well if Obama did not go to Baltimore to listen to the other side, what did he go there for ???

It became a situation in which Obama felt he had to scold the Republicans, and smack down every point they tried to make.

THAT is not bipartisanship -

How much more can one see that Obama's words are TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS OWN ACTIONS ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

The absent posters are doing well. Just found another pond to play in. Too much pee in this one at the moment.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2010 5:41 PM


Forget the pee. Watch out for the poo as you wade out.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Suzy is not me.

OK ?


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The absent posters are doing well. Just found another pond to play in. Too much pee in this one at the moment.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

...We really don't know what is going to happen in November - we don't know if Obama is going to recover a bit or whether he will continue to sink....

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:26 PM

37, Obama has about as much chance to recover as Jon Corzine does. He would need a few million new jobs by November. Get serious.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.

==

yeah how "uppity" of him

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: Suzy is 37th. Note the spacing between paragraphs and around hyphens. Like he doesn't flood us with enough idiocy already.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm going back to Obama's Senate calculations - it is a far stretch - however if one looks at Chris's top 10 list, it is not that hard to see the Republicans picking up 7 Senate seats from that list - which would give them 48.


Then the stretch states start coming into play, mostly because they are the only ones left.


Wisconsin can elect a Republican - even in normal times. Feingold is strong, he probably has lots of money - and he has name recognition - but he can still lose.


In Indiana a Republican can win too.


So it really is possible for the Republicans to get to 50 - and that leaves New York.


There are 2 seats up in New York - plus a Governor's race.


I believe this is the motivation behind Obama taking the terror trials out of New York - not any hardening of his stance on terrorism or Miranda rights for radical murderers.

Obama wants to take the issue off the table in New York - Obama also may believe he has a tricky Wall Street issue in New York as well.

We really don't know what is going to happen in November - we don't know if Obama is going to recover a bit or whether he will continue to sink.

That is the playing field at this point.

We will have to see how the electorate feels about Obama - the big question will be whether the voters want to send Obama a message or not.

It would be HIGHLY IRONIC if the Republicans won both Houses of Congress and Obama was forced by the voters to stick to his pledge to be bipartisan.


That actually would be hilarious.


AND we wouldn't have to hear Obama say "I have to sit here and listen to this" - what an arrogant horrible person.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry about it, 37th.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I think ole Jake is actually DitzyCcup... really sounds like him, racist remarks about watermelons and fried chicken and all.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 5:16 PM


Drindl, I would never do a joke about watermelons. Fried chicken, yes. Definitely not watermelons.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I think ole Jake is actually DitzyCcup... really sounds like him, racist remarks about watermelons and fried chicken and all.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler

you have got to be kidding - you think that kind of behavior is appropriate

Leave Jake alone

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


"jobs hoped for" is a good one

There has to be a better way than this clown we have in the White House who thinks he is going to lie his way through everything.


If you look at his resume, Obama has never been held to do any job he has been given, he just skates up to the next affirmative action program.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


"jobs hoped for" is a good one

There has to be a better way than this clown we have in the White House who thinks he is going to lie his way through everything.


If you look at his resume, Obama has never been held to do any job he has been given, he just skates up to the next affirmative action program.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


"jobs hoped for" is a good one

There has to be a better way than this clown we have in the White House who thinks he is going to lie his way through everything.


If you look at his resume, Obama has never been held to do any job he has been given, he just skates up to the next affirmative action program.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

...Maybe a few ex-military with fine collections of power tools and a free afternoon to take a drive.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 4:48 PM

Noacoler, you'll love this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Bring. It. On.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

well if arguing and debating are too difficult you can always flood the blog with repeated garbage to prevent others from having discussions and you can drive them away by doing so all day long, right?

After all Cillizza only cares about hitcounts, not quality

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 4:36 PM


Noacoler, give it up. Mr Cillizza is not going to hire you as a ghost writer, no matter what.

-
-
-

...there's not much reason to be here now.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 4:17 PM


Drindl, what exactly is it that keeps you here? All you and Noacoler ever talk about is leaving. When will it come true?

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I can't take the credit, Jake, it was you posted the boat as with your name. And it's not me you need to worry about; I have a life and a loving relationship and goals, achievements past and future.

The "stalkers" you need to worry about are the people you've done such a fine job of angering on liberal blogs all over the blogosphere. Since there just has to be one or two who would be delighted to know where to find you. Maybe a few ex-military with fine collections of power tools and a free afternoon to take a drive.

You reviled my dead father online. I'm seeing to it that you have no more anonymity to hide behind.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

P.S. To Chris Fox: I've never hidden who I am; look who the stalker is now.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Yep, 37th. It's unbelievable. There's no use arguing with them here. The only reason is to post the truth for lurkers.

==

well if arguing and debating are too difficult you can always flood the blog with repeated garbage to prevent others from having discussions and you can drive them away by doing so all day long, right?

After all Cillizza only cares about hitcounts, not quality

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Gotta go, but just by the way, this is the best short piece of art/culture crit I have read in a long time.

It is a semiotic masterpiece.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/artworld/2010/02/01/100201craw_artworld_schjeldahl

This installation,

"Cupid lewdly embraces his naked mother while, among other things, Father Time presides, a butterball putto rejoices, a cute-faced and snake-tailed grotesque proffers a honeycomb, and a dove departs on foot like a stricken guest from a party that is way out of hand."

is art.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Yep, 37th. It's unbelievable. There's no use arguing with them here. The only reason is to post the truth for lurkers.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Some questions for James Dort of San Aquario Dr. in San Diego, since you love talking about yourself so much.

What kind of law did you practice?  And cases you remember especially fondly?  Before what judges?

You call yourself a Christian, and since you believe the earth is 6000 years old and in the inerrancy odf the Bible, I presume you are a fundamentalist of some sort.  Do you attend church?  I suspect not since you are always here on Sunday mornings, so are you a fair-weather Christian?  Or is your Christianity nothing more than a bludgeon to use on people you don't like, e.g. homosexuals like me?

If you do attend church, is it one of those where gays are reviled from the pulpit and sermons express Jesus' support for laissez-faire capitalism?  Does your minister urge his congregation to kill a queer for Christ?  Does he express hatred of our 44th President?

Tell us more, Jimmy-Moore,

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Why? Look, no one else changes either.

It is funny when I read my letters from college, the same tortured teutonic prose,
pompous jerk, the same jack-as s-know it all...yech. I can barely read myself.

A sense of humor is the key to managing an overactive frontal lobe. It keeps us safe.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


The White House, Gibbs, Obama, Axelrod have NOT made any statements on the terror trials, giving terrorists lawyers or anything related to Obama putting through his "soft on terror" policies.


It is all deceptive.

Underhanded - what else do you want to call it ???


Leaked memos is how we found out about the prison in Illinois.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink -- they are really hopeless--beyond help and reason. it's too bad so many good posters have left because of the 3 Trolls, because there's not much reason to be here now.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Let's explore James Dort's weak argument: that Palin will increase in voter esteem in the next three years like Obama did.

Obama in February of 2006: gifted orator, accomplished scholar, stunningly gifted campaigner; organized and disciplined in all his work.  A man to watch. Not very well known but no negatives to speak of and lots of positives.  A man on the ascent, with better days ahead.

Palin in February of 2010: widely perceived to be an intellectual lightweight, as outrightly stupid by many, and providing nothing for people who believe otherwise to work with.  Disorganized, no notable executive talent, given to blowing up under pressure, resoundingly viewed negatively by more than FOUR FIFTHS of the electorate.  Passionately revered by motley movement of angry racists in increasing disarray, and whose fortunes are already waning.   Known compulsive liar, long history of abused power in office, ignorant and proud of it.

Need I go on?  There's no comparison.  Please, GOP, nominate this ditz so we can bury you forever.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Well, that's the last time I agree with you ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"The world is full of uneducated people who would lovingly throw their money down the drain by giving it to Sarah Palin"

Not true. She spends it. Think of it as a Palin *stimulus*. It isn't like she is some kind of sovereign wealth fund operator. The Tea Party money will stay right here in America unless Sarah has a lot of employees who send remittances home to their families, an unlikely prospect.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

MarkHarrisLtd


Yea, think of all the people who threw their money away giving to Obama last year for the general election - when Obama could have agreed to stay in the Federal Campaign System - and none of that money would have been needed at all.

That would have involved Obama matching his words and actions - something we come to expect that Obama does not do.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I won't even stoop to comment on palin -- except for the cretins of the world, she is nothing more than late night comedy fodder.

But what about that College Republican who tried to sabotage Mary Landreiu's phone system? Some Brainiac, huh?

'Recent events have convinced me that Douthat, the NYT’s “new, young” opinionator, and James O’Keefe III, “conservative activist” and FBI person of interest, are spiritual twins. Twin sons of different mothers, perhaps, sharing the same patriarch, or Patriarchy. They are rising conservative stars, young men who strive to turn their separate highly privileged upbringings into quick fame and fortune, using only the gushing springs of wingnut media welfare and the time-honored (read: worn & outdated) tropes of frat-boy philosophy. They are the two sides of modern Libertarian-Conservative “funny”. They are Legacy Comics.

Generally, “legacy comics” is the term for those funny-page panel strips in your local newspaper that haven’t been funny within living memory, i.e., since the original creator went senile or died. Of course, nobody expects serial strips like Rex Morgan MD or Dick Tracy to be entertaining—they’re the graphic equivalent of David Broder, staggering onwards only because the newspapers’ aging editors can’t bear to admit that the average American gets their daily medical / forensic entertainment from television and their daily political / criminal entertainment from the Enquirer and Drudge.

Now, James O’Keefe, “guerrilla videographer”, has openly declared himself a political comedian, at least while the FBI is still investigating his “boyish hijinks”. Cruel liberals have compared him unfavorably to vintage right-wing funny guy G. Gordon Liddy, but O’Keefe’s obvious role model (and this would kill the poor man, if he weren’t already dead) is the late, great John Belushi. Unfortunately, O’Keefe’s understanding of Belushi’s cut-yourself-on-the-bleeding-edge physical comedy is as superficial and moronic as a Republican congressman’s understanding of legislative debate. O’Keefe looked at the Blues Brothers and said to himself: “Big sunglasses and trash talk—the coloreds love that stuff! Wrecking other people’s lives—that never gets old!”

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

37th:

Tell me about it! I'm surprised it's not yet "jobs saved, created or hoped for". What a crock! This morning on MTP, David Gregory asked THREE TIMES if the NYC 9/11 trial will go forward there, and Axelrod refused to answer that very relevant question. Instead, Palin refusing to name a single mainstream liberal media publication is still big news.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


What is the purpose of bringing up comments from years ago ??


Why don't you just stop bothering other posters ??

Think of something of substance to say -


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The world is full of uneducated people who would lovingly throw their money down the drain by giving it to Sarah Palin when they should be giving the money to a worth while charity.

Posted by: MarkHarrisLtd | January 31, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

If Obama thinks that simply pulling the terror trials out of New York is going to be enough to reverse his "Soft on Terror" stance, he is sadly mistaken.

Obama really has no idea what he is doing with the terrorism fight - on one hand his is using drones to kill people with no trials, and killing people who are nearby - but if the terrorist is here, they get Miranda rights and could be released to Yemen.

Does that make any sense ?

The American people do not want to give terrorists lawyers.


The American people do not want to "roll the dice" with some terror trials.


It's not really the courts the American people do not trust, it's the lawyers the American people do not trust.


It is astonishing how difficult it is to get Obama to reverse course when it is obvious -

What is Obama going to do now, have a bunch of signs printed up which say "FREEZE" but not many people are really sure what is getting frozen and what is not ?


The Fraud that is Obama seems to keep lying.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Some things never change....


Jake D. says:
For the record, “RUCerious” is on the “Ignore List” — if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to discuss that, or anything else. let me know.

August 21st, 2007 at 11:13 am
Marcus Aurelius says:
For the record, “RUCerious” is on the “Ignore List” — if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to discuss that, or anything else. let me know.

Comment by Jake D. — August 21, 2007 @ 11:13 am

I’d like to discuss the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein or the raw materials that go into souse.

August 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
NoOneYouKnow says:
Jake D., do you think about what you write, or do you just type? Your responses amount to “neenerneener, you’re ugly and fat and I’m the best!” Seriously, the nuance and sophistication of your discourse is about equal to that of a sh*t-flinging ape. If you can’t bring some smart, could you at least bring some funny?

August 21st, 2007 at 11:19 am
NoOneYouKnow says:
Holy crap, I just got it. Jake D. is actually George W.

August 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am
Dave C says:
I was with the Army’s 60th Signal Service Company out of Fort Lewis, deployed to Korea and then Japan at the First Tokyo Arsenal, until my honorable discharge as a Sgt. – Jake D

Ripped that off from this site…

http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/60sigsvc.htm

Is there a reason this liar isn’t on everyone’s Ignore List?

August 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am
Jake D. says:
I do think about what I type. For instance, the following is very close to a “personal attack”:

. . . the nuance and sophistication of your discourse is about equal to that of a sh*t-flinging ape. If you can’t bring some smart, could you at least bring some funny?

August 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
gummitch says:
For the record, “RUCerious” is on the “Ignore List” — if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to discuss that, or anything else. let me know.

Comment by Jake D. — August 21, 2007 @ 11:13 am

Crickets chirping.

I guess no one gives a sh!t, Jake. Why not take this shtick over to a right wing blog and see how your “I are a registered Independent” b.s. wins you friends and influence?

August 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
missmolly says:
For the record, “RUCerious” is on the “Ignore List” — if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to discuss that, or anything else. let me know.

Comment by Jake D. — August 21, 2007 @ 11:13 am

OK, I gotta know — what good is an “ignore” list if you pay attention to it so much and respond whenever somebody on it posts?

August 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Jake D. says:
I am not George W. My full name is James Moore Dort — I posted a link to Stanford Law even — and I did serve in the Korean War.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Mikeinmidland, ceflynline, mibrooks.... All former good contributors who did good thought-provoking posts, all driven off by thus duo or trio of idiot trolls who post here all day, every day, flooding the blog with repetitive trash and with full approval of Cillizza, who once a week or so pretends he wants good poss here.

When the statements and the actions are at odds, believe the actions.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 and kknjincvc:


Obama doesn't have a program - you think that running around the country and doing a bunch of town-hall meetings claiming he is creating jobs is going to work now?


This is a joke.

There was a point when Obama was in Baltimore, in which he made a comment, and people in the room thought it was so silly they began to laugh, and Obama said, "no seriously"


Obama blew it last year - and if he is expecting the Republicans to compromise with him now and hand him a victory, Obama certainly is not going to do it with the attitude he had on Friday.


Obama doesn't have a program - beyond health care - now he appears to be grudgingly picking up the "jobs" mantra - but Obama already ruined his credibility on that one.

What else does Obama have - besides overspending on things that do not create jobs?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe is either posting under multiple names or he is working with a bunch of other people, perhaps in the same room

==

you're posting as SuzyCcup among others. You really should work in your typographic habits if you plan to maintain multiple accounts.

Welcome back to James Moore Dort, AKA JakeD. I can only wonder after years of so effectively pissing people off how many would like to know where to find him.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 and kknjincvc:


Obama doesn't have a program - you think that running around the country and doing a bunch of town-hall meetings claiming he is creating jobs is going to work now?


This is a joke.

There was a point when Obama was in Baltimore, in which he made a comment, and people in the room thought it was so silly they began to laugh, and Obama said, "no seriously"


Obama blew it last year - and if he is expecting the Republicans to compromise with him now and hand him a victory, Obama certainly is not going to do it with the attitude he had on Friday.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's Ellie Light. And they accuse US of posting under multiple names?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering what ever happened to mikeinmidland.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


Broadwayjoe is either posting under multiple names or he is working with a bunch of other people, perhaps in the same room.

OR BOTH.

I think he is working for the DNC or the White House - just harassing everyone who does not give Obama a lovefest - this started last year during the primaries when this type of behavior was considered "web-savy"


If you remember, the Daily Kos had a discussion section, and the Obama people battled the Hillary people in a nasty nasty way - finally the Hillary people were told to leave.


That nasty behavior has carried through.

Whatever.


Obama is becoming Jimmy Carter - the only difference is Jimmy Carter did not have the arrogant personality flaws which Obama has.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals.

==

a bright red balloon inflated with hot
emotional air floating off into a cartoon blue summer sky sparkly with Unreal Things.

This is why we laugh at you. And at her.

Yeah, GOP Rennaisance. Built on what? What ideas, what principles?

You guys are idiots.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc


I don't read the republican talking points - I just call them as I see them -


Come on - you are being silly.


Parties which are out of power seldom have "leaders" who are on par with the President.


That is why we have primaries.

If you take Obama out of the equation, who do the democrats have ? Pelosi ? Reid ? Hillary??

The democratic party rejected Hillary - she couldn't pull it together when she had so many factors going in her direction -

The democrats do not do much better when you start talking about "leaders"

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

Are you also posting as broadwayjoe?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS STILL SOFT ON TERRORISM


Obama has got to be kidding - after pulling teeth for months, the word is that the terror trials will not be in New York.


I have absolutely NO IDEA how Obama thought he was going to pick a jury in Manhattan - that was STUPID - everyone knows someone who was either there or died, or knows someone who's family was involved.


However, the first problem is we don't hear from Obama or Gibbs on his "soft on terror" decisions - it is always leaked out the side door - quite pathetic - IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SOFT ON TERROR, AT LEAST BE A MAN AND MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS YOURSELF.


I just took a look at the Senate map - and the reasoning for moving the trials IS CLEAR.


If you look at Chris's top ten too - the Republicans have a good chance of picking up at least 7 seats from the top ten - which would put them at 48 seats.


That should get Obama worried.


With Massachusetts becoming a wildcard, any state can possibly go Republican - so the next tier after those 7 - is Wisconsin, Indiana, and believe it or not New York.


One could see Wisconsin and Indiana, although there are strong incumbents in there with great name recognition, going Republican because historically those states are close - so it is possible in this crazy year for the Republican Senate total to go to 50.


Biden still has the tie-breaker.


But then there is New York - and there are TWO seats up this year, because Hillary resigned. If the terror trials became a big issue - and somehow the Wall Street mess became a big issue against Obama, it is possible that a Republican could win one of the seats.


You never know in this crazy year.


My point: OBAMA IS NOT GETTING ANY TOUGHER ON TERRORISM - HE IS JUST LOOKING AT THE SENATE ELECTORIAL MAP AND THINKING HE SHOULD TAKE THE TERROR TRIALS OFF THE TABLE AS AN ISSUE IN THE TWO NEW YORK SENATE RACES.


That is about as far as it goes.


I don't know if the Republicans could get strong candidates together in New York - or even if they would do well, New York is strongly democratic.


I think that just about explains it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street .. you are repeating republican talking points.

Three checks today:
Palin in 2012. Check.
Pawlenty in 2012. Check.
No positive mention of the 44th President of the United States. Check.

I stand by my comment: Neo-con and corporatist republicans will not support Palin but they will let her earn as much as she can before telling her to get in the backseat and shut-up.

Pawlenty .. the guy who was content to let I-35 collapse instead of increasing the gas tax $0.05 to support infrastructure repair.

Face it the GOP is leaderless, they have NO! plan for America unless corporate America receives massive amounts of welfare.


Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


When was the last time any selected VP Candidate who did not win went anywhere?

Not for nothing, the attacks on Sarah Palin, have been so SEXIST - and this coming from people like you who are looking for a RACIST behind every corner and behind every comment.


Qualye, Lieberman, Edwards - all of them go on the campaign trail and see the crowds and think they can be at the top of the ticket.


Who cares? the reality is the democrats are more obsessed with Sara Palen than the Republicans.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


When was the last time any selected VP Candidate who did not win went anywhere?

Not for nothing, the attacks on Sarah Palin, have been so SEXIST - and this coming from people like you who are looking for a RACIST behind every corner and behind every comment.


Qualye, Lieberman, Edwards - all of them go on the campaign trail and see the crowds and think they can be at the top of the ticket.


Who cares? the reality is the democrats are more obsessed with Sara Palen than the Republicans.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone see Scott Brown on SNL last night? The Obama "State of the Union" intro was funny too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

37 2.0: Pls. fill me in. Why is young Mr. Johnston so negative about Mrs. Palin. And just who is "Gregory Charles Royal" and what does he have to do with Mrs. Palin?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

An example of the FRAUD of Obama - or rather DOUBLE FRAUD

Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois - got up at the conference and said to Obama that Obama used to negotiate with the Republicans when Obama was a State Senator in Springfield.

Roskam said that Obama as President has not been negotiating with the Republicans - and Obama agreed.


WHO HAS OBAMA BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH?? The lobbyists.


The pharmaceutical lobby


The doctors' lobby


The labor unions to cut the health care taxes for only them.

CAN OBAMA'S ACTIONS BE ANY MORE OPPOSITE FROM HIS RHETORIC ???

OBAMA'S JOB PERFORMANCE IN THE FIRST YEAR HAS BEEN THE MOST PATHETIC OF ANY PRESIDENT SINCE BUCHANAN -


We are going to have a bunch of cheerleaders out there saying different, but Obama is pathetic.


I have never seen any President be called a "LIAR" in front of Congress - now it has happened spontaneously TWICE.

Obama has been trying to ride on a bunch of lies and deceptions - and in the end no one can get anything done on that basis.

That is called inexperience.

Obama really should not be the President, he is not qualified.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Three checks today:

Palin in 2012. Check.
Pawlenty in 2012. Check.
No positive mention of the 44th President of the United States. Check.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"But then we have Obama cutting off a Congressmen in the middle of question - Obama said "you expect me to sit here and listen to something I don't agree to half of it"

Well, Wasn't Obama there to reach out to the other side, and listen to the other side ???

Obama making that comment was really TELLING.


This attitude of Obama has DESTROYED a major part of his presidency -

And we still hurt a bad attitude on the part of Obama on Friday - the attitude of "it's your fault" - "we are going to blame you" - "we want you to agree with our position"

McConnell and McCain have said many times that the Republicans will agree to 80% of the health care bill - You know what- it is the democrats who have been rejecting that compromise all the way through.


I really do not get it - Obama backed himself into this corner - he comes off with this attitude - and he somehow wants the Republicans to hand him a victory 8 or 9 months before the next election ????


It really is a mess.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Hello everyone.

Wow! Mr Cillizza mentions Sarah Palin, and this blog turns into a place for liberal inbreeding. Calm down libs. You might destroy your species.

Sarah Palin will definitely run in 2012. She's going to run at some point, so why not 2012? Besides, I can't think of a more satisfying way to take out the Trash Man Obama.

► Question to libs: If you saw Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Janet Napolitano on a sinking ship, who would be saved?

► Answer: The American People!



Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 31, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The difference between Palin and Reagan is well understood. Neither are/were particularly intelligent. But Reagan was a hardened politician, perhaps sintered more in the crucible of SAG politics than as governor of California. Which is tougher to survive?

Anyway, he knew he had to know his lines and that he was an actor in the role of POTUS. He talked about it, he enjoyed the role and he did it well. Palin has not learned how to be a programmable device.

She is proud of that, proud she can neither learn her lines nor act. Native intelligence cuts both ways, for Obama, it has become a sort of trap. But for Palin, she was a terrible candidate and she could never be a great President. She is too proud of her ignorance.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc


I stand by my comments - first, Obama came there in the spirit of bipartisanship -


Obama spoke to this group for 70 minutes on Wednesday, and he had the opening speech on Friday.

AND OBAMA CAN'T "SIT THROUGH" ONE MINUTE OF THE OPPOSING SIDES THOUGHTS ???


It really is a bit of an attitude problem.

It wouldn't be so hypocritical if Obama didn't go around the country in speech after speech saying how bipartisan he is.

It really is a JOKE.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Again, collecting information on the candidate. This from Vanity Fair's article on Mrs. Palin's (almost) son-in-law Levi Johnston, by all accounts a credible and fine young man:

"After the campaign, Johnston watched Palin turn into a different person. The result back home in Alaska was a woman ready to turn in elected office for money.

Sarah was sad for a while. She walked around the house pouting. I had assumed she was going to go back to her job as governor, but a week or two after she got back she started talking about how nice it would be to quit and write a book or do a show and make “triple the money.” It was, to her, “not as hard.” She would blatantly say, “I want to just take this money and quit being governor.” She started to say it frequently, but she didn’t know how to do it. When she came home from work, it seemed like she was more and more stressed out. "

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/09/levi-johnston.html

Doesn't sound good...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"But then we have Obama cutting off a Congressmen in the middle of question - Obama said "you expect me to sit here and listen to I don't agree to half of it""

Republicans were making campaign speeches, Obama was correct to tell the congressman to get to the point and ask his question.
BTW, were are all the teleprompter comments?

Can you imagine GWB or Palin taking on 150+ members of the opposing party?

Of course not.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc


NO MATTER what anyone says - ON REAGAN'S INTELLECT -

Looking back, doesn't Reagan seem like the smartest one of the bunch ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The POTUS is expected to process enormous amounts of information about domestic policy, the economy, science, space, intelligence, foreign policy, etc. So the inability of a candidate to remember one person's name (despite numerous tries and with the assistance of staff!) is a legitimate concern. And this was a problem highlighted by a senior level GOPer, not me.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama really backed himself into a corner - the elections are in November - that is now nine months away.


NOW Obama wants to be bipartisan -

Obama really destroyed his Presidency with his choices last year - it is really amazing how the stimulus bill was diverted to democratic pet projects.

This is what you get when you have a presidential election in which voters want to make a racial statement and little else.

Obama had little economic or business experience - AND NOW THE COUNTRY IS SUFFERING FOR THAT.

Obama is weak on terror - he sends a lawyer to a terrorist.

THE UNBELIEVABLE PART OF IT IS OBAMA DOES NOT SEE THE ECONOMY AND TERRORISM AS THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF HIS JOB - he is off on other things like Miranda rights - and the most important things are left ignored.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Jake, we are still trying to collect as much info as possible on the llkely candidates so we can make an intelligent choice among them. In that connection:

Just who is "Gregory Charles Royal" and what does he have to do with Sarah H. Palin? Who is this guy? Fill us in.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Again, nothing of substance in your posting, just mocking - do you have anything to say that relates to policy?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

A prerequisite for running for POTUS is knowing the name of your opponent's VP. Well, actually just basic memorization skills. From politico.com:

"Sarah Palin’s charming opening debate line for now-Vice President Joe Biden — “Hey, can I call you Joe?” — was scripted after she repeatedly referred to him as “O’Biden” in preparation sessions, former McCain campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt told “60 Minutes.”

Schmidt was interviewed by Anderson Cooper for a segment about "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime," a book about the 2008 presidential campaign by political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to be published Monday.

CBS News said in a release previewing the segment, to be broadcast Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT, that Schmidt recalled a reflexive tendency by Palin to refer to Biden as “O’Biden.”

“It was multiple people — and I wasn't one of them — who all said at the same time, ‘Just say, "Can I call you Joe,"’ which she did,” Schmidt recalled."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31249.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to have the photo-op from the Republicans - with Obama talking - and then Obama responding to every question.


But then we have Obama cutting off a Congressmen in the middle of question - Obama said "you expect me to sit here and listen to I don't agree to half of it"

Well, those same Republicans sat for 70 minutes Wednesday night listening to the State of the Union address, and then they listened to Obama's talk on Friday - and Obama gets angry when he has listen for one minute to something he doesn't agree with.

These little remarks are telling of Obama's general attitude.

Any reasonable person has to wonder.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

“On "Meet the Press" this morning, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) seemed contrite and talked about trying "to show the American people that we've learned our lessons, in terms of too much spending, and what we've tried to demonstrate over the course of the last year is a real sense of fiscal responsibility, a real sense that Republicans need to show the American people that we can stand on principles and that we are the party of better solutions."

"seemed contrite" as usual all talk.

Soo what are the republican solutions? More tax cuts and borrowing from China?
What are republican solutions to eliminating $10+ trillion dollars of debt accumulated since 1980?
Where was republican fiscal responsibility during the last 8 years of GWB’s administration?

Mr. mantan is an embarrassment to the republican party and the people of Ohio.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Boehner was unable to say a single, specific thing that the Republicans could agree to do. The party of NO, indeed.

Sen. Brown sounded pretty good. I might have voted for him myself.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

“EXACTLY!!! So, even if Gov. Palin is as "dumb" as that, she could still win twice. Just like GWB beat "genius" Gore and Kerry.”

Thanks to the corporatist SCOTUS the U.S will never really know if GWB beat Al Gore.
Electoral vote 271 to 266 States carried 30 to 20 + DC Popular vote 50,456,002 to 50,999,897 Percentage 47.9% 48.4%
Not exactly a landslide result for GWB

In 2004 the only reason GWB won was the Iraq war and the fear the neo-cons used to terrorized the American people.
Electoral vote 286 to 251[1] States carried 31 to 19 + DC Popular vote 62,040,610 to 59,028,444 Percentage 50.7% 48.3%
Still not a landslide for GWB

If Palin were to run, I do not believe she will, American voters will not be as complacent as they were in 2000.
In 2000 the economy was good, there was a projected surplus, no wars and neo-cons had sucked in the so called Christian conservatives into believing GWB would overturn Roe v wade, didn’t happen.

Republican have demonstrated during the last year that they do not care what happens to main street America.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans have learned anything it must be the danger of the imperial presidency. I wonder if Boehner understands that. Perhaps the Tea Party people understand, arrogated prerogatives are the death of democracy. Bush Cheney (together with their Justice Department, Rumsfeld and etc.) were odious in this regard.

Of course, fiscal responsibility would be a good thing, but neither party is capable of this, not any more. Congress is hopeless, no matter which party "controls" it. The Presidency and the SCOTUS are where progressive or regressive change can happen.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

EXACTLY!!! So, even if Gov. Palin is as "dumb" as that, she could still win twice. Just like GWB beat "genius" Gore and Kerry.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

On "Meet the Press" this morning, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) seemed contrite and talked about trying "to show the American people that we've learned our lessons, in terms of too much spending, and what we've tried to demonstrate over the course of the last year is a real sense of fiscal responsibility, a real sense that Republicans need to show the American people that we can stand on principles and that we are the party of better solutions."

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Re all the whining about 'blaming Bush.' It's not about "finger-pointing"; it's about credibility. It's about understanding that those who are responsible for creating a mess deserve to be held accountable for their failures. It's about voters appreciating whose ideas work, whose ideas fail, and making electoral decisions accordingly. It's about realizing who deserves to be taken seriously and who doesn't."


Drindl, I am cosigning this. The people who complain that Democrats are finger-pointing and whining are the VERY people who are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in. This is not Obama's recession and not Obama's unemployment and not Obama's deficit and not Obama's wars. He is working to solve these problems. If the voters need reminding of this, then someone must remind them. If they cannot see how the Republicans are blocking his efforts, then this must be pointed out to them, too.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 31, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"What was Reagan's "intellect" compared to BHO and Romney?"

Reagan was a great cheerleader and motivator but we now know he wasn't the sharpest tack on the board when it came to economic policy.
Raising social security taxes hit the middle class, then he borrowed the money to give a tax cut to people who didn't need a tax cut.
Reagan and Bush Sr left the U.S with a $5 trillion dollar debt. GWB added another $5+ trillion dollars to the debt.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that David Axelrod can honestly answer questions?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"If I see another "cleaning up 8 years of disaster" statement I think I will puke..."

Good. We are busy trying to clean up the "lost decade" of Republican mismanagement and you need to keep drinking ipecac.

But no matter how much you puke, you can't purge reality, the damage done to this country by its Republican leaders. By the way, are we all ready for the Iraqi civil war, the one the Iranian proxy will win?
It turns out lying about the causes and costs of foreign military adventures has consequences.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

What was Reagan's "intellect" compared to BHO and Romney?

broadwayjoe:

No.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

After reading through comments here, and hearing Obama and Dems speeches, I have one point to remind my progressive friends:
The Democrats and Obama (a rising and important voice in the party) controlled Congress and the purse in 2007 and 2008.
What responsibility do they have for the disasters of the financial crisis, seeing as they voted for every budget, and were in charge of overseeing regulation of the economy?
Can Obama really say he inherited the mess and had nothing to do with it even though he was a Senator for the majority party while the mess was created?
If I see another "cleaning up 8 years of disaster" statement I think I will puke at the bald hypocrisy of it.

Posted by: johnL1 | January 31, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

“1). You ADMIT she's the most popular Republican out there, yet you are certain she has "no chance"?
2). What was BHO's "chance" on January 30, 2006?”

Come on Jake, Palin is the most popular fund raiser at the moment. But once republicans realize she’s not going to share her funds ($64,000 [5.3%] out of $1.2 MILLION spent) the cat fight will begin.

It’s true Obama was a long shot in 2006 but look at the difference in intellect. Republicans like Romney, Brown even Pat Robertson educated McDonnell will make her look like the class dunce. Rudy, who will not run either, would make her look like the village idiot.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

That individual's charges have been addressed and discredited to the satisfaction of people of good will.

As for "Mr. Gregory Charles Royal," an internationally celebrated trombonist who once played with Duke Ellington, would you care to share with us just who he is relative to Mrs. Palin? Just who is this guy?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone else watching MTP?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Ha, ha, ha did you see McDonnell’s version of Bobbie Jendal’s response to Obama’s state of the union address? Did you notice the four people sitting behind McDonnell especially the Asian guy who kept nodding in agreement with everything McDonnell read from his tele-prompter?

Brown, once he takes the PURITY oath he’s toast. He’s was for heath care before he was against health care especially since he now has a life-time gold plated policy paid for by U.S. taxpayers.


Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 11:03 AM
____________

We'll have to agree to disagree about McDonnell and Brown.

I'm at ground zero, and here they are not dismissive of their candidacies. The press with the help of bogus "polls" and false narratives will give life to his candidacy to create a "horse race." It's already started. A recent poll fronted by Drudge said Brown is "tied" with BHO; remember that it was some outlier bogus poll that jumpstarted the Brown candidacy against Coakley. That poll became the basis for Brown-is-gaining false narratives and daily free publicity in the MSM that swept him into Kennedy's Senate seat. There still is enough of the old Southern Strategy base for McDonnell or Brown to pull it off.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Since you've posted the name on several Palin threads, you know exactly who "Gregory Charles Royal" is, yet another uncorroborated rumor about Palin being a racist. Those types of vicious attacks are meant to sway her to NOT run, obviously. Now, do you know who "Larry Sinclair" is and what he has alleged doing with BHO?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Re all the whining about 'blaming Bush.' It's not about "finger-pointing"; it's about credibility. It's about understanding that those who are responsible for creating a mess deserve to be held accountable for their failures. It's about voters appreciating whose ideas work, whose ideas fail, and making electoral decisions accordingly.

It's about realizing who deserves to be taken seriously and who doesn't.

Andrew Sullivan had a good piece on this the other day.

'Let me try to explain: it matters who caused the problem and why because if we do not understand the causes we cannot fix the problem and it matters because any adult judgment of a politician's first year that does not take into account the inheritance he was bequeathed is impossible.

It matters because the most important fact in American politics is the worst presidency in modern times that preceded Obama.

Two failed, unwinnable wars that continue to destroy lives and cripple our finances, a massive splurge in entitlement and discretionary spending, a huge increase in defense spending and massive tax cuts: this we now have to forget? This context should be removed from the picture?

It matters too because the very people who gave us this mess are now adamantly refusing to do anything to get us out of it, and pledge to return to exactly the same policies that got us there in the first place: more tax cuts, more war, more entitlement spending, more debt, no health insurance reform, no action on climate change. Republicans act as if there were some viable alternative out there. There isn't.

We have to begin to realize that accountability and credibility still matter.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Pat Oliphant (The Best!)did a cartoon in October 2006 called All Hail Obama. Barak was depicted as an Easter Island Head surrounded and worshiped by desperate idolaters, of which I was one. Of course I was offended, which is why I remember it.

The little creatures (which comment on most Oliphant cartoons) are a donkey, which says, "All else I've got is Kerry or (ugh) Hillary." The little ducky says, "You could blow this thing yet."

Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Sheryn posted: January 31, 2010 10:39 AM
“Sarah Palin is playing her game: Gabbin' and Grabbin'. Why do these silly posters even talk about Palin in 2012 or discuss how Palin would do against Obama? The Republicans need to look at who is qualified and educated and would best represent their Party….Palin is a plastic Barbie Doll--good to look at but the light is pretty dim but this empty-headed cheerleader is laughing all the way to the bank!”

Ouch!!!
Reality check; neo-con and corporatist republicans “WILL NEVER” support the Twitter Queen if she stupidly decided to run for POTUS. The Queen of Twitter like Rudy will take the money and leave town.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

1. I believe she has no chance based on the results of the scientific Marist Poll.

2. I don't know what BHO's chances were on January 30, 2006.

Now: just who is "Gregory Charles Royal" and what does he have to do with Sarah H. Palin? Seriously, who is this guy?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Yep, Brown is likely to give mass Rs a little heartburn:

'Brown later outlined a few specific issues on which he might break with his own party. Notably, he repeated Sunday he was mostly pro-choice, though he did say he opposes granting federal funds to abortions and thought Congress should work to improve adoption services and decrease the number of abortions.

The new senator also signaled he would support the president's plan to offer tax credits to businesses that hire new workers or enlarge paychecks for those they already employ. A number of Republicans have expressed doubts about that plan, fearing it would not spur the hiring that Democrats believe it will.

Later, the Massachusetts Republican stressed he supported the president's proposed spending freeze, which most other GOPers carp is insufficient.

Brown then noted he supported Secretary Tim Geithner's stay at the helm of the Treasury Department, primarily because "the president has to work with the people he feels most comfortable with." Other Republicans, however, have started calling for Geithner's ouster, mostly because of his connection with the AIG bailout.'

definitely will flunk his purity test.

Posted by: drindl | January 31, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

For the last time, if there's really "no chance" she could be elected, you people should go do something else. Assuming that she gets the GOP nomination, any thinking person has to admit she has a chance. I mean, even though Walter Mondale lost every State but his own to Ronald Reagan, she would at least have that much of a chance, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

I won't be ticked off. Maybe YOU can answer the questions that broadwayjoe won't?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Agreed.

broadwayjoe:

As always, I am more than happy to answer your questions to me just as soon as you answer my already pending questions to you. Here they are again (just in case you honestly didn't see them and aren't just trying to avoid answering them):

1). You ADMIT she's the most popular Republican out there, yet you are certain she has "no chance"?

2). What was BHO's "chance" on January 30, 2006?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

“For the year, Palin raised roughly $2.1 million through Sarah PAC and ended the year with $900,000 in the bank. She donated $64,600 to candidates and party committees.
That relatively high burn rate is due to an expansion of the organization's staff, according to those familiar with its operations.
as she mulls a bid for national office in 2012.”

BURN RATE! Palin must have “all” afterburners on full blast, peddle to the metal. She burned $1.2 million dollars but only “donated $64,600 to candidates and party committees”, WOW! The teapartiers are going to be ticked off when she takes what is left of the money and heads for Wazula.

broadwayjoe posted: Jan.31,2010 9:47 AM
"While we do support her ambitions given that she has no chance against 44 in 2012 (in contrast to Brown and McDonnell who do),"

Ha, ha, ha did you see McDonnell’s version of Bobbie Jendal’s response to Obama’s state of the union address? Did you notice the four people sitting behind McDonnell especially the Asian guy who kept nodding in agreement with everything McDonnell read from his tele-prompter?

Brown, once he takes the PURITY oath he’s toast. He’s was for heath care before he was against health care especially since he now has a life-time gold plated policy paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 31, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I guess it's just a fluke that she wrote the number one best-selling political memoir (beating even Obama's and BOTH Clinton's) and has 1,243,176 fans on Facebook. Seriously, if there's really "no chance" she could be elected, you people should go do something else.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Yes, of course Palin could be President of the United States. I don't think she will be, (My bet is Romney + a recent R "winner" will be running against 44), but of course it is possible.

I bet (literally) early and often on Obama and everyone, I mean everyone around me thought I was crazy and stupid. It just had to be the Clintons or McCain was a sure thing; back then, Obama was out of the question.

Now, as many, many mistakes as Obama has made, I sure am glad we have him and not the Clintons. So yes, Sarah Palin could be President, this is a democracy after all.
These days I've been studying the history of Jacksonian politics, Whigs versus Democrats, the rebirth of the Republicans and the run up to our Civil War. The twists and turns of political fate in a real Democracy are marvelous.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Just two: Who is this "Gregory Charles Royal"? What connection, if any, does he have to Sarah H. Palin?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

momof20years:

Her PAC is dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation. SarahPAC believes America's best days are ahead. Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination. SarahPAC also believes energy independence is a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family (ok, maybe not YOUR family) wants and deserves. SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals.

Are there any more questions you have? Oh, yes, I send her money so that she will run for President. Once Paris Hilton is elected Governor from anywhere, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is playing her game: Gabbin' and Grabbin'. Why do these silly posters even talk about Palin in 2012 or discuss how Palin would do against Obama? The Republicans need to look at who is qualified and educated and would best represent their Party. Palin's effort is to keep her name in the news--and she has the hired staff to comment for her on every thing that makes the news. Saracuda also needs to make sure that she makes all the money she can NOW since she knows her time for making big bucks through her speaking engagements and book tours will end if she does not get the GOP nomination. She gains nothing if some little known GOP becomes more popular, so she needs to get all the donations from small town America to prevent that from happening. She also has to try to get people elected that pose no threat to her political ambitions--even if it means that she goes against someone running from her own party. Afterall, knifing in the back or being dishnest is the true definition of going rogue. Queen Blah Blah gets her power by being divisive and negative and critical--this is much easier than staying full term in the office to which she was elected. Hiring staff to make statements for you--refusing to answer questions from the media or audiences--all steps taken to ensure that the Queen of Nonsense continues to get donations. Look at how shallow her political analysis of Obama's speech was--any fifth grader could have done better! Palin is a plastic Barbie Doll--good to look at but the light is pretty dim but this emptyheaded cheerleader is laughing all the way to the bank!

Posted by: Sheryn | January 31, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

shrink2:

At least you can admit if she gets the GOP nomination, she has a chance of being elected, right? Maybe you can even answer the questions Fate1 refused to answer. I just don't see any Republican (or Obama for that matter) bringing up personal attacks. Just like Hillary was hesitant to bring up Obama's drug use and connection to Rev. Wright. In hindsight, McCain should have, But the fact that McCain lost doesn't mean he didn't have a chance especially if he had run a better campaign.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Fate1:

Thanks for your post. Care to answer my questions now?

broadwayjoe:

As they say about polling, it's a good thing the election is not being held today. You ADMIT she's the most popular Republican out there, yet you are certain she has "no chance"? What was BHO's "chance" on January 30, 2006? Obviously, a lot can change in two years. Your excessive attention to everything she does belies that fear. You don't see bsimon or mark_in_austin posting furiously on everything Palin thread, because they truly believe she doesn't have a chance. By all means, though, please start posting links to all the people who don't have a chance ; )

By the way, her middle name does not start with an "H".

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

At least something on this blog is valuable.

gtsruytdirfhjrtjyjdhger (and that was the screen name I wanted!) has kept his coolforsale site listed on The Fix.

I suppose he is at least not attacking anyone and remains, if vaguely, on topic. Here you can get knocked off Chinese Junk for even less than you can on Canal street. This is the free market; like the freedom from government (even building codes) Haitians have enjoyed. We too could be living in Palin's Republican Paradise.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 31, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"So all these new staff--what are they doing? Sarah's not running for anything, is she?

So where is the high spending rate (at least $200,000 per month) going?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 9:53 PM"
___________

12, I'd think those are excellent questions for an ambitious journalist at the Washington Post to pursue. Oh well. Gone are the Wood-stein days...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

While we do support her ambitions given that she has no chance against 44 in 2012 (in contrast to Brown and McDonnell who do), it is still important to know the facts about the candidate. The only recent sourced profile of Sarah H. Palin we could find was veteran journalist Charley James's piece from 2008.

http://www.laprogressive.com/election-reform-campaigns/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

This development is actually good news in O-Nation.

Palin is by far the most popular and well known GOPer in the country (because she appeals to a shrinking demographic that seeks to "turn back the clock" and "take back America").

However, Palin is also clearly non-competitive against BHO. The Marist Poll indicated she would lose against BHO by 23 points if the 2012 presidential race were held today. She sucks the air--and the campaign money--out of the room, which is bad news for truly competitive mainstream GOP candidates like Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell.

Every second the MSM spends giving her free publicity like this helps BHO's reelection effort.

So...Go Sarah-cuda. Go Rogue! You betcha.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 31, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Sarah has lost some of that lustre she once had. Her money grubbing, her inability to stay with a job, and lately her loyalty to the hated John McCain have not worn well with her most rabids supporters.

And now this speaking fee at the Tea Party convention. Add that to the fact that there are some exciting new faces being feted by the GOP like Scott Brown and Paul Ryan and what you get is a fading Sarah Palin.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 31, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

If you are as seasoned as I have become at translating mediaspeak, this is what one would normally regard a "puff piece". Chris Cillizza is one of a great many mainstream media analysts who are determined to elevate and legitimize Sarah Palin as a serious contender for the 2012 Presidential race.

If you translate the real meaning of Cillizza's piece it is that Palin came in under expectations in her fundraising not doing all that much better than the lesser known Tim Pawlenty. But remember, Sarah will never get a bad review in Chris's column. He and Bill Kristol in in a macho competition for Sarah's favors.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 31, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Cilizza has been suffering bad from declining attention to his liberal hate fest aka the Fix.

Did you miss your quota this week and have to rile up the natives before a Sunday deadline.

What better way than to post on the peds favorite topic so an all night loony tunes leftist sludge party ensues. Reminds me of the villagers gathering torched to head off to the monsters castle.

It would be grand if we could ever discuss berry's accomplishments but that seems to be a bridge too far.

Today's news: berry's stupid terror trial moved. Another failure of leadership on the endless trail.

The democrats will have to make due with fixing blame for failures for now. They have little else. Hence the tone of this democrat blog.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 31, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Did all you complainers save for a "rainy day" or did you live paycheck to paycheck spending frivolously on flashy cars, flatscreen tv's, computers, phones, and other consumer items you didn't really need? Did you use your house as a ATM machine taking out home equity loans? Did you "count your chickens before they hatch" believing that house prices would rise forever? Did you get the best education you could and keep applying yourself to be the best you could be? Did you keep good health insurance in case something bad happened to you?

Please don't complain if you were too stupid to plan for and take care of yourself. Don't make the people who did pay for your sorry a-s-s-e-s!!!!

Sarah Palin is earning her own money and paying her own way. What are you detractors doing other than sitting here complaining?

Posted by: charlietuna666 | January 31, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

What exactly does her PAC do? She's not a political office holder, she's not even a candidate . . .why are some people sending her money? Why is she even asking for money?

Talk about getting rich for doing nothing . . .Sarah Palin is the new Paris Hilton!!!!

Posted by: momof20yo | January 31, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, http://www.coolforsale.com
Buy now proposed a "New Year's gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for?
Quickly move your mouse bar. commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, coolforsale will provide service for you all, welcome to
1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes
and kids shoes.
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc.
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc.
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans,
Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc. NHL Jersey Woman $ 40NFL Jersey $35 NBA Jersey $ 34MLB Jersey $ 35 Jordan Six Ring_m $36 Air Yeezy_m $ 45 T-Shirt_m $ 25Jacket_m $ 36,Hoody_m $ 50 Manicure Set $20
Fordetails,pleaseconsult,
http://www.coolforsale.com

Posted by: gtsruytdirfhjrtjyjdhger | January 31, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Wow. This reminds me of the "Family Guy" episode where Peter Griffin started the Church of Fonzie.

Posted by: dontbeanidiot123 | January 31, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2 wrote: "Which GOP primary opponent do you think will say she should just go home and raise her family first? Better yet, that she should have aborted her Down syndrome baby? If she runs, she will get the nomination (and I believe the White House). Sit with that for a minute."

If those are the qualifications you think are necessary to be president you must have a low opinion of this country. Palin is no leader. Check out how she ran Wasilla and Alaska. Check out how she ruined careers and threatened people who challenged her. She is IMHO a primadonna who cares for no one but herself. And you will here questions during a primary of why her daughter was really pulled from school. People who know the truth will come forward. Palin's narcissism will be exposed. If she is smart she will stay in her current position.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 31, 2010 6:49 AM | Report abuse

there will be some interesting political theatre in the next presidential election cycle when the republicans get their hands on each other.

Who will rove support I wonder? Will Giuliani or Romney or Huckleberry see Palin as a real threat? Can you imagine the attack dogs they'll release on her if they do?

She'll never win their nomination. And should it somehow happen anyway (given enough thrust, even pigs can fly) all the ugly things they say about her in the primaries will be used by the democrats.

Nah, it's just not going to happen. Be realistic about it.

Posted by: khote14 | January 31, 2010 3:26 AM | Report abuse

At least she didn't spend it on clothes. Again, if there's no chance she could ever win, don't you have more important fish to fry? If it's a legal PAC expenditure, what the he'll concern is it of yours anyway? Did YOU donate to her PAC?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:24 AM | Report abuse

BlueDog1:

If she spent $50,000 on her own books / postage to sell each autographed copy at $100 each, that sounds like a goldmine to me. As always YMMV.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:14 AM | Report abuse

even more strange than the worship given to Palin is the claim by her worshipers that anybody is afraid of her. In particular the liberals.
I know some liberals, they aren't afraid of her.

Why do the Palin worshipers seem to think that people who don't agree with her political views are all liberals, and worse are afraid of her? What need does it fulfill inside the vacuum in their head to make this claim?

Posted by: khote14 | January 31, 2010 3:13 AM | Report abuse

"One born every minute"
-- PT Barnum

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse

BlueDog1:

I've donated to her PAC and bought her book, and she can spend her money however she likes. Thanks for the info.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 31, 2010 3:01 AM | Report abuse

Palin fans, I HIGHLY recommend looking over her PAC expenditures so you can see what she did with your money.

She is shoveling it out the door for friends like Meg Stapleton, probably the worst spokeshack in history. Boy she spent a lot on political consultants, lawyers, etc., for someone who spent much of last year in hiding. She spent $13,000 to decorate her bus for her book tour, several thousand on autopens (so much for the personal touch), $12,000 for t-shirts and bookmarks (apparently for the Tea Party. Hope you enjoy your free bookmark after spending more than $500 for the convention!) Wow, $50,000 for a web site? Hope it does the dishes, too.

Sometimes the bus wasn't comfortable or fast enough, hence $27,000 for a private jet on Veterans Day.

She spent $50,000 on her own books so if you give her money, she will send you a book that you are helping her buy (and earn royalties on). She spent a lot of your money for travel expenses on her book tour. (BTW, did you get your book yet? Lots of people on her fan sites are complaining they haven't.)

And thanks for buying her and her family $260 worth of snacks at the Yankee Stadium.

Overall, she spent more than a third of her (your) money to raise money.

And out of those couple of millions you gave her, she spent $64,000 on conservative candidates. That's it.

But if you think she quit as governor for any other reason than to get rich and make sure she stays famous, then keep sending her money. She really appreciates it, and her friends need to earn a living, too.

Here's a start:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00458588/449901/sb/ALL

Posted by: BlueDog1 | January 31, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Palin will run for president. She is disliked strongly by too many voters. She'd be a tough sell among independents. Plus, her taking a job at Fox News makes this situation even worse. Everyone knows that Fox News is not objective. It's essentially a cheerleading squad for the republican party.

Posted by: boston_fitz | January 31, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS STILL SOFT ON TERRORISM


Obama has got to be kidding - after pulling teeth for months, the word is that the terror trials will not be in New York.


I have absolutely NO IDEA how Obama thought he was going to pick a jury in Manhattan - that was STUPID - everyone knows someone who was either there or died, or knows someone who's family was involved.


However, the first problem is we don't hear from Obama or Gibbs on his "soft on terror" decisions - it is always leaked out the side door - quite pathetic - IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SOFT ON TERROR, AT LEAST BE A MAN AND MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS YOURSELF.

I just took a look at the Senate map - and the reasoning for moving the trials IS CLEAR.


If you look at Chris's top ten too - the Republicans have a good chance of picking up at least 7 seats from the top ten - which would put them at 48 seats.


That should get Obama worried.

With Massachusetts becoming a wildcard, any state can possibly go Republican - so the next tier after those 7 - is Wisconsin, Indiana, and believe it or not New York.


One could see Wisconsin and Indiana, although there are strong incumbents in there with great name recognition, going Republican because historically those states are close - so it is possible in this crazy year for the Republican Senate total to go to 50.


Biden still has the tie-breaker.


But then there is New York - and there are TWO seats up this year, because Hillary resigned. If the terror trials became a big issue - and somehow the Wall Street mess became a big issue against Obama, it is possible that a Republican could win one of the seats.

You never know in this crazy year.

My point: OBAMA IS NOT GETTING ANY TOUGHER ON TERRORISM - HE IS JUST LOOKING AT THE SENATE ELECTORIAL MAP AND THINKING HE SHOULD TAKE THE TERROR TRIALS OFF THE TABLE AS AN ISSUE IN THE TWO NEW YORK SENATE RACES.

That is about as far as it goes.


I don't know if the Republicans could get strong candidates together in New York - or even if they would do well, New York is strongly democratic.


I think that just about explains it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 31, 2010 1:48 AM | Report abuse

That's an easy one. Corporations like stability. Palin embodies tumult. They'll go for the three piece suit.

Again, I don't think she'll be relevant in 2012, but if she does run people will be seeing a lot of her. And, alas, hearing her. She'll be matronly by then too. And the contrast between Romney's smooth plasticity, Huckabee's folksy charm (which will get old later), and Palin's relentless nastiness will not work for her. She will be wearying from anyone not like our blog trolls. Her appeal is to haters.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

LOL. Interesting image. Palin supporters like to visualize her running against Obama. The dog's leg kicks like he's going into orbit. But as soon as the imagined opponent changes to one of the likely Republicans, the leg quits twitching.

I don't know what kind of big money Palin can raise from corporations (because that's the key, isn't it?) versus the other R's.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 31, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Finally found the metaphor I was looking for.

Pailin and the GOP remind me of that hollow in a large dog's chest. Stick your fist into it and the hubs leg kicks. Doesn't do the dog any good to kick at air with its hind leg, but kicks anyway.

Palin sets off wierd kicking among conservatives. No idea why she gets them all lathered up about abortion and patriotism and all that anti-intellectual stuff but they kick at the air anyway.

It's harmless to the dog. It'll rip conservatism apart as the Palin wing highlights and exposes what we've known all along: a lot of conservatives are batsh•t crazy.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 31, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't give her a penny. She's about as useless as Bush was and Obamma is.

Posted by: zhengye | January 30, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

Thanks for the compliment. I'd like to think I understand how liberal women think. They'd be seriously p*ssed off if someone even hints that a woman can't manage a family and a career. And conservative women really resent it when liberal women seem to look down their noses at them. But that dynamic won't occur until the general election campaign.

During the primary season, the religious subtext will be operating full power with both Huckabee & Romney, each in his individual way, but it WILL play in the conservative world. Mrs. Palin won't get any leverage out of her pro-life stance, because Huck/Romney are also pro-life.

Huckabee & Romney each has his own problems with the conservative base, but the idea they are just going to roll over like puppy dogs and let Mrs. Palin take over is not true. They will fight her on her weaknesses, and everyone knows that her family "issues" will be a weakness.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

You have keen insights, 12Bar. I hadn't thought if the "gentle" hints at having her hands full with maternal responsibilities but yeah they would play that card and it would be a winning hand.

Anyway we are talking about 2012, a campaign that kicks off two years from now, and my feeling is that the whole Palin phenomenon will be old news by then. There just isn't that much there. Look where she's gone in one year. Down.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

"Hot off the presses ... The GOP declares another Republican Victory over Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000446.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Posted by: James10"

Reminds me of an interview I saw with a former Miss Virginia. She was talking about how she got more interviews than Sarah Palin did during her run for VP/

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler,

An advantage Mrs. Palin has is that she's not an incumbent. However, both Huckabee and Romney will also run as outsiders, so that won't distinguish her during the GOP primary.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

@Noacoler

The left has to be careful not to be sexist and jeopardize the women in their base. The right doesn't have the same problem with their base.

The problem Mrs. Palin has with the conservative base is that there are at least 2 candidates (Huckabee and Romney) who are as pure as the driven snow in comparison. They will both endlessly point out, gently but EVERYONE in their base will get it, that Mrs. Palin has a LOT of responsibility to her family, because look at all the responsibility she has, blah, blah, blah.

You think the conservative base won't pay attention to that?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: I think you've nailed it.  Opponents in the GOP primaries aren't going to cut Palin the slack she got in 2008.  People were so deathly afraid of appearing sexist that she got a hard pass from the press until the falsehood collapsed under its own gravitation and the Couric interview took over the narriative.  No newspapers.  Russia from an island.  And babble, babble, and more babble.

It wouldn't only be Romney.  But it would provide *quite* the entertaining show, with Republicans attacking each other, demanding impossible balances between running against each other and being in the same party, with the Palin wing and the uh, the .. well, whoever the moderates .. uh, wait a minute, I mean .. well anyway they'd be figjhting a lot.

It's really kind of rich how nobody in the GOP can win without the hard core base, and nobody can get their vote and still get anyone else's.  Who the hell is gonna vote for Palin or Huckabee?  Or, Jesus, Pawlenty?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Hot off the presses ... The GOP declares another Republican Victory over Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000446.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

For: James10
Definition of a LOSER:
--Goes to NJ for the Gov, Repub wins
--Goes to VA for the Gov, Repub wins
--Goes to MA for the Senate race, Repub wins
--Goes to Europe for Chicago Olympics, Brazil wins
--Goes to Copenhagen for Global Warming, humanity wins...and this one just keeps on giving, but I guess he can share the credit with Al Gore.
--Stacks the deck with polically appointed hand puppet Brown to attack Bush-era lawyers that provided legal opinions on enhanced interrogation methods, Bush-era lawyers win

Now I can understand your foaming at the mouth over Sarah's political future, but I absolutely can not understand anyone who does not care about the Redskins/Cowboys games.

Anyway, I expect it is past your bedtime. Go drink your Kool-Aid, then let Mommy tuck you in nice and safe.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

JCM-51 ... Sorry forgot ... I encourage you from the bottom of my heart to send as much money as you possibly can afford to Sarah's PAC. The more money you send her the better.

Send some money over here also: http://obamacrimes.com/

Philip takes credit cards. There are some others, but I'd hate to dilute your contributions. Give those two all your money. ... If you really need a third ... I'd recommend this one: http://www.cbn.com/700club/

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

As someone else pointed out, Mrs. Palin first has to beat the other GOP candidates. Anyone who thinks that she will get a pass from Romney due to her family problems, doesn't understand Romney. That will be his GREATEST advantage over her.

You'd have to have lived in Utah/Idaho/SoCal/AZ to understand it, but he'll speak in code that everyone will get. I guarantee Romney will come out looking like gleaming Moses leading his people to the promised land in comparison.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget Sarah Palin was the governor of the State of Alaska and also a mayor of a small town, which is like being a "community organizer" but you have real responsibilities! Eh, Barry?

Posted by: jamespmarion | January 30, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

JCM-51 ...

I can see why you like Sarah so much; you're just like her. Can't answer a simple question.

Why does it make any difference who wins a freaking football team? You might as well root for Royal Farms over Highs or Safeway over Giant Food Stores; it makes as much sense. Football is a freaking business with players bought and sold. The number of players who care about the town they play in could be counted on one hand.

You are aware that McCain/Palin lost in 2008? You are aware that the candidate that Sarah Palin supported in the 23rd district lost? And because of Sarah's consistent track record as a loser you think she's the Dems worst nightmare? I can see your logic. Eventually she has to win.

It was nice the the Republicans and Democrats united in support of Obama to make the largest increase in the history of the largest socialist health care program in the US ... VA Health Care ... Now THAT is socialism.

Maybe you could do me a favor ... Do you recall how many years exactly the RNC had elective abortion on their health plan but never noticed?


Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we have her enter a room with 140 democrats on national TV and see how good she can handle questions. She'd QUIT(again) and leave in about 10 minutes folks, screaming, "this isn't fair, everybody's picking on me." But hey, go ahead elect Palin to run against Obama, in this Bush led recession, American's need all the laughter we can get.

Posted by: kubrickstan | January 30, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

After seeing Obama perform at:

(1) State of the Union,
(2) GOP-HOR debate,

it's safe to conclude that his "57 State" reply was mere sarcasm.

Jeezus, even Bush knows there are 62 States.

Posted by: summabreze | January 30, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

--So long as the Dallas Cowboys beat the Washington Redskins twice each season and

--Fear of Sarah Palin makes Democrats foam at the mouth and

--Obama continues to fail in pushing his socialist agenda down our throats

I am a happy camper

Will have to send some $$ to Sarah so the frenzy can continue :-)

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I am so disgusted with this country that I will support her campaign as my way of registering my contempt of what is going on.....I hope she leads us all to perdition....I can see perdition from here...how about you?.....hahahahaha...just watch.

Posted by: SofaKingCool2009 | January 30, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

LOL!! Now who's the stalker?

Have a great night everyone else.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Don't you people have anything better to do on a Saturday night?! If she's such a non-threat and could never be elected, why not just ignore her?

Posted by: JakeD2

==========================

If she was ignored she might not run. Plus it's fun to make fun of the Palin supporters by playing Palin back to them.

We're snowed in. Nothing but carp on TV. I take it you have nothing better to do on a Saturday night, which is why you're here. What's your excuse?

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Good one, janet8.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Goes to prove the Fix is not the only blog with banned posters. This is email that went out to Tea Party convention goers. The convention which features Mrs. Palin seems to be on shaky grounds. Starts next week (maybe).
----------------------------------------

Email--A message to all members of Tea Party Nation Setting The Record Straight by Sherry Phillips

"Former Tea Party Nation Members - Several former members were unanimously banned from our site for reasons running the gamut from antagonism to passing on confidential information. These members have been blogging, as well as discussing their association with liberal media outlets and conspiring with each other to, "Take TPN and this convention down". In one of their more egregious statements a former member wrote that Judson stated, "I want to make a million dollars from this movement." Judson has never made this statement."
-----------------------------------
From TPMuckraker blog

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

She would have done a heck of a lot better than Obama.

He thinks there's 57 states in the US.

Posted by: janet8 | January 30, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, look at bright side, that is $1.4 million which won't be spent on Crystal Meth, tattoos, cheap wiskey, and cigarettes.

==

you kidding? That's where all her supporters' money goes first.

Which is why they only have a dime apiece left over to send to Barbie the Pinup Girl

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Don't you people have anything better to do on a Saturday night?! If she's such a non-threat and could never be elected, why not just ignore her?

==

I'm listening to the new FIVE CD release by my main man Ichiro Tsuji in my excellent Sony headphones, practicing my Vietnamese, got three parrots on my shoulder, feeling sweet from exercise and sex, an topping it off making fun of whiney Palin supporters. Hartle's "Gravity" awaits later.

Who could ask for more?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

LOL The boogey man is coming and the heathens are scared! With good reason..

Posted by: Straightline | January 30, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse


"Sarah PAC, the political action committee of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, collected $1.4 million over the final six months of 2009, a solid -- if not spectacular -- total that demonstrates her fundraising capacity as she mulls a bid for national office in 2012."
----

And with WaPo on the attack, she will quadruple her take. No doubt, the attacks of the liberal media on her character, intelligence and femininity (even her private life) will be her best weapon to get elected. Thank God for the Washington Post, the New York Times, Chris Van Hollen, David Letterman and James Carville of the world.

Posted by: GoodAmerican | January 30, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Well, look at bright side, that is $1.4 million which won't be spent on Crystal Meth, tattoos, cheap wiskey, and cigarettes.

Posted by: singleseatbiggermeat | January 30, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

The money goes to pay her staff, so she can have a PAC, so she can pay her staff, so she can have a PAC.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:56 PM
-----------------------------------
It makes so much sense when you say it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

--Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008

Please, save your money. Donate to earthquake victims.

Posted by: summabreze | January 30, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

The money goes to pay her staff, so she can have a PAC, so she can pay her staff, so she can have a PAC.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Don't you people have anything better to do on a Saturday night?! If she's such a non-threat and could never be elected, why not just ignore her?

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

CC writes> That relatively high burn rate is due to an expansion of the organization's staff, according to those familiar with its operations.

-------------------------------
So all these new staff--what are they doing? Sarah's not running for anything, is she?

So where is the high spending rate (at least $200,000 per month) going?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse


Which GOP primary opponent do you think will say she should just go home and raise her family first? Better yet, that she should have aborted her Down syndrome baby? If she runs, she will get the nomination (and I believe the White House). Sit with that for a minute.

==

but Jimmy-Moore, they don't need to say that.

All they have to say is

(1) she's stupid

(2) she abandoned her post

and she is, and she did.

NOT to mention that only 14% of American believe she's fit for the job.

Still think she's going to get every McCain vote? Go change your Depends

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

COWENS99:

You are aware that McCain, not Palin, ran for President last year, right? That's a nice list you've got, but a lot can change before 2012. I thought she beat Biden in their debate. She would probably do the same with Obama. Don't count her out just yet.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Fate1:

Which GOP primary opponent do you think will say she should just go home and raise her family first? Better yet, that she should have aborted her Down syndrome baby? If she runs, she will get the nomination (and I believe the White House). Sit with that for a minute.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, major talent!

Palin starts a PAC and raises, my gosh!, enough money to pay the staff! Presidential timber! With Palin in charge we'll get those deficits down in no time! We'll have a bake sale!

Or a baby shower...

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse


If Palin the Stupid wants to blow a couple of million bucks in a wasted effort to run for dogcatcher, let her. It will be good for the economy, and as she hasn't the chance of a snowbell in hell of ever getting elected for anything, what's the harm? Other than all of us in America will have to suffer listening to her mindless ravings.

On second thought, maybe for another million or so we could convince her to just go away someplace where we do not have to hear or see anything about her ever again.

Posted by: surfer-joe | January 30, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Debate is the most perfet expression of human political art. In law ,possession is the pinnacle of debate.

President Obama is in the White House and Sarah Palin is in the outhouse.

WINNER.

Posted by: COWENS99 | January 30, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is best left in Alaska to keep an eye on those pesky Russians.

Posted by: notthatdum | January 30, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Sarah is a great candidate if you want George W. Bush back, only not as smooth.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 30, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Atheists? Damn right.

This is the 21st century, not the 3rd.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin, please do not droput of the national politics scene. Please take your son everywhere you go, and have your daughter keep up that no sex until marriage
campaign, after she had sex and a baby before , or was it after, anyway please keep her visible.

When questioned do not get pinned down, always be for all of it, or be aganist all of it. Never speak in public unless you have your screen from Fox with all the nice sayings.

Please do not let down the teabag movement, and try and remember the difference between Iran and Iraq. It is important that you remember what country your son served our military in. Very important.

Never let the people forget that you resigned from your elected position as Govenor of Alaska. Very important. By resigning from all the jobs you had in Alaska you are building a record. No one else would ever think to do that. Sarah you are brillant.

Keep up the good work, carry on the cause and here is another check for $1000 for your campaign.

God Bless,

President Barack Obama

Posted by: COWENS99 | January 30, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

We're talking about less money nationwide than some emotionally immature rich men spend on a vanity car. In six months.

But it has Cillizza coming to work on a. weekend hyperventilating in excitement.

Wow Chris, must be really exciting having these glowing superhuman overlords looking in your direction and even -- gasp! -- talking to you! Even if it is only "get out of my way punk"

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

James10

--So long as the Dallas Cowboys beat the Washington Redskins twice each season and

--Fear of Sarah Palin makes Democrats foam at the mouth and

--Obama continues to fail in pushing his socialist agenda down our throats

I am a happy camper

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

One thing the Palin supporters always forget, if Sarah ever runs for office she must first win a primary against republicans before she ever has to debate a democrat. Sarah, if she runs, will have to run the gauntlet of republicans looking to put her down, expose her inabilities, attack her claims, in short, trounce her. And we all know how good republicans are when they are in attack mode. Sarah would not have a chance since, unlike Biden during that silly debate, she would not be given any deference.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 30, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler--see part 2 again, now lets laugh together. And add to it
--No sanctions for Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding.

Even though Obama and Holder stacked the deck with their polically appointed hand puppet Brown, justice has been served. Maybe now they can turn their attention to the Black Panther voter intimidation and Acorn voter fraud cases.

Yeah, you guys have a lot to laugh about these days. Have a glass of Kool-Aid on me.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I sense a real fear in the leftists and atheists juvenile name calling attacks against Sarah Palin!

Posted by: jamespmarion | January 30, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

JCM-51 ... you forgot already. This is about Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin threw herself into the 23rd district race of New York ... She didn't get involved in any other of those races .... Then there is your pro-infanticide Scott Brown who one up in Mass. ... He also is happy with that socialist Mass health care. He's not a RINO? ....

Did Sarah throw her support behind Scott Brown? A simple yes or no.

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Answer Part 1: Better a Democrat than a RINO like the "Republican" nominee in NY's 23rd, Sarah and the Tea Party accomplished their mission which was to prevent the RINO from winning.

===

hahahahahahah

yeah, she endorsed green teeth, and he lost.

You guys crack me up

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the slavish loyalty of a national army of the angry and unemployed translates to some SERIOUS jack.

A stunning dime per month!

Yeah. The Great White Hope.

Bet the check from San Aquario Drive arrives on time every month!

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

From James10: Tell us about Sarah Palin's help in the 23rd District of New York. More nightmares like that would be fabulous. ROTFLOL

Answer Part 1: Better a Democrat than a RINO like the "Republican" nominee in NY's 23rd, Sarah and the Tea Party accomplished their mission which was to prevent the RINO from winning.

Anser Part 2:
Obama keeps failing:
--Goes to NJ for the Gov, Repub wins
--Goes to VA for the Gov, Repub wins
--Goes to MA for the Senate race, Repub wins
--Goes to Europe for Chicago Olympics, Brazil wins
--Goes to Copenhagen for Global Warming, humanity wins

Only thing Obama seems good at is taking expensive vacations and flying around in AF One for "date night", fund raising and kissing international butts.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Allegedly the hottest name in politics, getting more publicity than the President, with Oprah appearances and a bestseller, and raising 230,000 per month?

The fact that at least two zeroes are missing off the end is the real story here.

James Moore Dort, why aren't you donating more?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=fvw

Posted by: James10"

Hah, one of the best Tina Fey moments was when she essentially used Palin's answer to the bailout question verbatim.

And by the way, is Palin on record in saying that the bailouts are instrumental in job creation?

Uh oh.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much money Obama donated to Palin?

Posted by: huyle23 | January 30, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm thinking that given Palin's unorthodox style and her resonance with the conservative Christian right that she will be pumping these funds toward a possible Supreme Court appointment in a Republican administration. The fact that she doesn't have a law degree won't stand in her way, everyone will jump on her bandwagon as they'll be able to count on her vote "fer sure." Whining Democrats...

Posted by: BwkDawg1 | January 30, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

At $1.4 million per year, she should be able to run a successful campaign in North Dakota in 2012. You go, girl.

Posted by: lolyla | January 30, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

"Ross Perot and Mitt Romneys' campaigns proved that spending a lot of money on a presidential campaign does not ensure success."

The difference is that Perot and Romney spent their own money. It's a lot different to spend your own money and to spend money others have donated to you. The latter is a better predictor of electoral success. I still think Palin will get crushed since she STILL hasn't shown any sign of political maturity, but it's not an apt comparison.

Also, I'll argue the point that Perot didn't have success. Yeah, he didn't win, but he did damn well for a third party candidate.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Impressive figures. But when you factor in her cut, how much does that leave? Remember, Quitter Palin has expensive taste in clothes, private jets (you didn't actually think she was on that bus during the city-to-city drives for her book tour, did you?) and speaking fees ($100k to speak at the teabagger convention). For someone who rails against elites, she clearly is at conflict with herself.

No wonder she QUIT her post as Governor mid-term; it didn't have nearly enough perks for her fake-wanna-be folksy self.

Posted by: mikebythesun | January 30, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Death Panels! Death Panels! The teabaggers duped by $arah should quickly remove their grandparents or parents living in nursing homes under socialist government paid-for Medicaid and set up hospital type beds in the dining and spare rooms. The prescription and doctor expenses for their care can all be paid for by the Dupes, too. Thereafter, there should be a Dupes Convention in which all will loudly cheer and wave their flags and celebrate their freedom from socialism and the wonderful opportunity to fend for themselves... until they sink into bankruptcy.

Posted by: sallyquint | January 30, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Palin makes our heads explode, but not in exasperation with her awesome power.  Oh, on the contrary.  Palin is an idiot and none of us are worried about her achieving anything in politics.  She has no executive talent, nor political significance.  Worried about her?  Please.  And yes, probably a lot of that bake-sale level fundraising comes from Democrats who want to see her get the nomination for 2012; given that. Obama could get caught with a live boy or a dead girl and still win re-election.  James M. Dort of San Diego, CA might vote for her but not many others will.

No, what makes our heads explode is the absurdity of people who claim to believe in her.  It takes someone with the turbo-charged powers of self-deception, someone like Mr. Dort, to make a political silk purse out of this sow.  To look at this babbling idiot baby-pump and see superlative ability isn't just a stretch, isn't just an insult to the intelligence, it's the widest miss of the mark since Grand Funk Railroad got passed off as a rock band.

Please, run her.  America needs the laughs.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 30, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Might as well flush that money down the crapper, its the same effect

Posted by: rl5614 | January 30, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

JCM-51
"Obama is the laughing-stock, not Sarah. Only the most delusional of left wing kool-aid drinkers would think otherwise."

DC Sage 1 wrote: After a very successful first year in office it is a good thing that the do-nothing party of no sees the President as a "laughing stock". The President has achieved everything that he tried to do in his first year in office and shortly he will sign healthcare reform into law.

Even the Rupert Murdoch flunky Bill O'Reilly was taken aback by Sarah Palin's breathaking ignorance, her rank stupidity and her lack of knowlege about anything. Hopefully, the do-nothings will put all of their aspirations on the shoulders of this incompetent, uneducated quitter.

Posted by: DCSage1 | January 30, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

If Palin ever won the presidency she would, due to her inability to govern, allow her VP to make the decisions. I can see it now:

Palin-Cheney-2012

Posted by: Fate1 | January 30, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMypXCUWMw&NR=1

Sarah has already made all the political ads for the DNC

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

By her own admission, Palin did not know that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 until she prepared for her debate with Biden. Every American, Republican or Democrat, should be ashamed that such a nitwit was in line for the Vice-Presidency.

Posted by: jimestw | January 30, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

You could not write a more perfect book about a way for a political party to lose its internal leadership, hand its power to those who have no leadership ability, no governing ability, no idea how to effect change and stability through government. The republicans are completely rudderless, handing the stage to anyone able to get money from people. McDonnell is in the governorship for a few days and he's giving the rebuttal to Obama's SOTU. All you need is to offer anything new, anything that looks like it might get people to vote your way. But notice how no one is ASKING Palin to stump for them. That is the thing to watch.

The republicans, by doing this, are setting themselves up to be a party that is not interested in governing. They show no interest in coming up with ideas to make America better, to set a vision for the future, to lead, as they did 40 years ago. They are a purely reactive party. Challenging the ideas of others is their preferred method of governing. And, the current practice of simply saying NO to anything Obama supports is school yard politics, not worthy of any party in such a great country.

So while they cheer Sarah's ability to gather money they should ask, why can't the RNC do this? Why is no one sending money to the RNC to get them to push their ideas? The answer is simple. They have no ideas, they do not pretend to have ideas, they do not care to have ideas, and they expect to win elections by working to stop government as they did when they shut the government down when Clinton was in office.

That is not how to lead. They are quickly moving themselves into a permanent political minority. Right now, the democrats, with all their flaws, are the only party that at least care to govern. That is sad, but unfortunately a position the republicans put themselves in on their own after 14 years of not governing. Sarah's ability to raise money should concern the republicans, not be something to cheer.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 30, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I would have to see it in black & white...so much is embellished until who do we believe?

Faux information seems to be what is done...

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

It will take more than that amount...

Posted by: lindarc | January 30, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it, but, yeah, I used to be a life-long Republican.

It thought the party stood for responsible economic policy, for executing wars efficiently, for looking out for the American people, stopping the Mexican invasion, and promoting the hiring of Americans (rather than the H1-B program).

And Palin is a moron.

What's this about the Tea Party folks???

Posted by: JB4519 | January 30, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it, but, yeah, I used to be a life-long Republican.

It thought the party stood for responsible economic policy, for executing wars efficiently, for looking out for the American people, stopping the Mexican invasion, and promoting the hiring of Americans (rather than the H1-B program).

And Palin is a moron.

What's this about the Tea Party folks???

Posted by: JB4519 | January 30, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

She might as well spend the money on clothes

Posted by: GWGOLDB | January 30, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

She might as well spend the money on clothes

Posted by: GWGOLDB | January 30, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Comments that include personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from site. That is a joke. Chris do you even read these comments from your fellow enlightened liberals? Or the one's from the Romney lovers. Quit complaining about Palin and BEAT her. Straight up far and square beat her. No personal attacks, no whining about her and her family. Take your one vote and exercise it against her. It is the brilliance of so many on here that got us the great community organizer-in-chief in the last election. Of course most of you on here love what The One has accomplished. Almost there comrades. Long live the U....err Cuba.

Posted by: RichardG1 | January 30, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

To JCM-51:

Tell us about Sarah Palin's help in the 23rd District of New York. More nightmares like that would be fabulous. ROTFLOL

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

JCM-51
"Sarah Palin is the radical left wing's worst nightmare...a woman who can actually break that glass ceiling at the White House."

DC Sage 1 wrote: Sarah Palin is a nitwit, a flim-flam artist and a quitter. Palin is ignorant, ill-informed and generally unqualified for national office.

It is only fitting that a vacuous airhead like Palin should represent the aspirations of the do-nothing party of no.

Posted by: DCSage1 | January 30, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Do they have a job for dog catcher for her to
run for?
SHE QUIT THE GOVERNOR`S JOB, IN ORDER TO STOP THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HER ABUSE OF POWER, AND OTHER SHADY THINGS THAT SHE WAS INTO.

ANYBODY WHO VOTES FOR THAT BIMBO..DESERVES WHAT THEY GET!! this woman is dumber that dirt.

Posted by: blazerguy234 | January 30, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

If we are in bad shape now, think how it will be with Sarah Palin. She won't do any better, it could be worse. Help us all if she wins anything.

Posted by: wilson0004 | January 30, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to reply to Law1 comment. The Tea Party goal is not to be a third party. Their goal is to be politically active to make each party more conservative. Too bad if you think the Tea Party will split the Republican vote..they will just make the Republican candidate more accountable.

Posted by: jndblu | January 30, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

WHAT is Cillizza doing? Leading with this amouht, only slightly more than Palenty, whose comatose politically.

Actually $1.4M isn't much of a showing
During the book tour and it's publicity, and in this early phase. Not great.

And 14,000 donners (raising 1.4?) isn't
great either.
Cillizza decide he needs a headline? He losing his touch?

Posted by: whistling | January 30, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

WHAT is Cillizza doing? Leading with this amouht, only slightly more than Palenty, whose comatose politically.

Actually $1.4M isn't much of a showing
During the book tour and it's publicity, and in this early phase. Not great.

And 14,000 donners (raising 1.4?) isn't
great either.
Cillizza decide he needs a headline? He losing his touch?

Posted by: whistling | January 30, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

So she actually "burned" more than $1.2 million of which $64,000 went to other Repubs. O.K. there some staff and travel costs. But, Ms. Sarah and Mr. Tood are mining the minority, lining their pockets, and riding the gravy train out of Wasilla. Finally, Gov. Pawlenty seems to be a nice guy. But, I am only person bothered by his mullet and close set, small eyes.

Posted by: BBear1 | January 30, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

So she actually "burned" more than $1.2 million of which $64,000 went to other Repubs. O.K. there some staff and travel costs. But, Ms. Sarah and Mr. Tood are mining the minority, lining their pockets, and riding the gravy train out of Wasilla. Finally, Gov. Pawlenty seems to be a nice guy. But, I am only person bothered by his mullet and close set, small eyes.

Posted by: BBear1 | January 30, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Is the American public that fickle that would vote for this woman?? A pretty face... popularity... the ability to raise money... everything but substance of issues... everthing but global knowledge... Americans typically vote for just such people. When are American going to realize that there needs to be a certain amount of intellect associated with this office... we stear clear of such people... and mostly anyone with an once of intellect stears clear of politics.

Posted by: BobbyYarush | January 30, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Ross Perot and Mitt Romneys' campaigns proved that spending a lot of money on a presidential campaign does not ensure success. Like Sarah, Mitt was an attractive, two-faced candidate with a religon "problem" (i.e. being a Mormon). Palin suffers from being a religious zealot. Yet Mitt and Ross were both far, far more intelligent and articulate than Palin, who seems to lack the gray matter possessed by the average donkey and demonstrates the syntax of a female George Bush. Even with their serious money advantages over their opponents, Mitt and Ross still could not pull out anything approaching a win. Sarah will have even greater problems given her track record of being an idiotic and confused quitter. I hope Sarah runs as a Republican as she will separate a lot of green stuff from her mentally disturbed and uneducated base (who would just lose their money at the bar, poker clubs, KKK cross-burnings and race track any way), without any chance of prevailing. She will also help provide many new jobs to out-of-work Americans and ensure that a Democrat will be in control of the White House for years to come. Run Sarah, run!

Posted by: law1 | January 30, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The only candidate who can guarantee Obama's defeat is Obama.

Posted by: JakeD3 | January 30, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin had her shot...now go home and raise your children.

Posted by: easttxisfreaky | January 30, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin is the radical left wing's worst nightmare."
*****
She is the right wing's worst nightmare. The one candidate who can guarantee an Obama reelection.

Posted by: squier13 | January 30, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

How much of that was donated by liberals hoping for another four years of Obama?

Anyone who likes the current president should be working hard and long to make sure the Tea Party movement doesn't implode and that Sarah P. gets the nomination. Tea baggers will split the GOP vote and the chances that someone as half-baked as Palin could sustain a years long presidential campaign without being unmasked as frighteningly unqualified are astronomical.

A serious candidate from the right would be a lot more intimidating than the Kato Kaelin-esque political stylings of Ms. Palin.

The big brains in the GOP have to be crying into their pillows knowing that millions of dollars and hours of airtime are going toward someone they know is more mascot than coach.

That said, I'm personally happy to see her making a go of it.
Run, Sarah, Run!

Posted by: dccamp68 | January 30, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I am certain that every penny of the $1,135,400 spent on staff was well spent. You should see her parties!

Posted by: JakeD3 | January 30, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the laughing-stock, not Sarah. Only the most delusional of left wing kool-aid drinkers would think otherwise.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Sarah will have that "pittance" wasted in no time. She obviously loves the glitter and limelight. The "flash in the pan" is all she was ever after. It's so unfortunate that her very REAL ignorance of politics and the world ruined her act! If she could've just kept her mouth shut so all that emptiness could come out, she's probably have gone someplace. Too many people got wise to her!

Posted by: Maerzie | January 30, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is the radical left wing's worst nightmare...a woman who can actually break that glass ceiling at the White House.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Those who claim that "liberals" heads would explode, are proving they are just as uneducated as Palin. Liberals that I know don't give a good dang about Palin, but they are wondering just how low the Republican party is willing to go in their ignorance. Why would a major political party want someone so ill-equipped to represent them? Don't they already have an abundance of southern brainless members? Isn't it time they actually courted and brought educated people into their party? Or is it that their leaders believe only ignorance can snow their supporters?
Palin is a fly-by-night who got her minutes of fame by lying and playing to the undereducated, now she is reaping all the dough she can since her husband quit his job. Honestly, the Republican party used to have some genuinely patriotic and well schooled members who actually knew that Canada is not a state and the differences between North and South Korea. Sarah didn't know either. DuuuuH!!!

Posted by: papafritz571 | January 30, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who backs Sarah Palin just because she's a woman is as big a moron as she is. She's a liar and a discredit to women politicians everywhere.

Posted by: kentuckywoman2 | January 30, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

you have to be kidding. Can't you just see it? One of the most inarticulate women we've ever seen would be hosting all sorts of world leaders? She would make us a global laughing stock. If she does run this would be the best thing that could happen to Obama. Can't you just see the debates? May I call ya Barack?

Posted by: happy2bhere | January 30, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is the radical left wing's worst nightmare...a woman who can actually break that glass ceiling at the White House.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 30, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a liar, quitter, and a moron. Let a competent Republican challenge Obama and we all will benefit.

Posted by: jimestw | January 30, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Run this through your head. You know that most of humanity is smarter than you are, but here comes these over-tanned white men in suits who say: all you have to do is show up in a church now and then - the wackier the better, and run for some hick state mayor, Alaska, say a few things about christian values and so on.

You get a million dollars a year for it. So you're soaking the rubes for their pennies, and maybe that's a bit dishonest. But hey, it's a million dollars!

Like you wouldn't sell your soul for that too.

Oh, and hey - you goobers who believe in her, it's not her that the liberals hate, I'm pretty sure about that. It's you that they hate. Just like you hate them.

Ain't it fun?

Posted by: barferio | January 30, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Watching lefties go apesh** over Sarah Palin.....priceless.

Misogynists all.

Posted by: NoWayNotNow | January 30, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

As a liberal Democrat pro-choice working mother - I am thrilled with Sarah Palin's success and will back her every inch of the way.

It is time for women to lead and to stop being demoralized by paternalistic male demagogues. Read the bigoted blogs here and feel the need for real change for American women!

GO SARAH!

Posted by: mgd1

==================

I think she's more of a negative for the women's movement than a positive. The woman quit being Gov of Alaska because she had better things to do. [paraphrasing her own words]. That certainly can't help the image of women in leadership positions.

Perhaps you can think of some, but I cannot ever recall a man resigning an elected office for the stated reason
having better things to do. They announce they aren't going to run again, but they don't put in a two-week notice for an elected office.

I think her interviews were an embarrassment. Any of the female GOP Senators are above Sarah Palin by a wide margin. Those are women I respect. I may not agree with them, but I respect them. Sarah. I can't respect Sarah Palin and it's not because she's a woman, it's because she's ignorant and exploited her Down's baby, not to mention exploiting her teenage daughter who was pregnant.

Have you ever seen any politician or any party, male or female, put their unwed pregnant daughter on the stage for political points?

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

@steveboyington

Think of all the PBR that went unbought.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 30, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

The "burn rate" is on the level of an "enterprise" run by a grifter.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | January 30, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Dollars to donuts Simple Sarah finds a way to put all this money in her pocket. Her chances of making the White House are nil, despite all the dopes who seem to be willing to bet the opposite. And she knows that.

Posted by: jrw1 | January 30, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to enjoy watching her make liberals' heads explode this coming year. She will light up this crap town like Vegas before she's done, and you all will have to sit there and take it!

----------------------

That is pretty funny. Yeah she is so special. Go run Sarah, run run run. It will surely secure another Obama term. But eh, you want to committ political suicide please put her on the ticket. I am begging you.

Posted by: patisok | January 30, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Burn rate indeed. So of the 1.2 million dollars of contributions she spent last year, 5% went to actual political action work.

Compare that with standards for organizations allowed to collect charitable donations: they spend about 95% of their money on project work.

As usual, SP has it bass-ackwards.

Posted by: MiniSpare | January 30, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

As a liberal Democrat pro-choice working mother - I am thrilled with Sarah Palin's success and will back her every inch of the way.

It is time for women to lead and to stop being demoralized by paternalistic male demagogues. Read the bigoted blogs here and feel the need for real change for American women!

GO SARAH!

Posted by: mgd1 | January 30, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Sure hope she is their candidate. That would just about clinch another Obama term. If they are dumb enough to run her, then GOP deserves a defeat. I predict those Independents who might have strayed will come running back. She is the star of the right wing base but the rest of us want a sharper knife.

Posted by: patisok | January 30, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Harry the horse's asp Reid raised $2.1 million and already spent all of it on ads, yet Reid is still trailing in Nevada by better than ten points.

Posted by: screwjob2 | January 30, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I probably didn't donate to http://www.SarahPAC.com the second half of 2009 either. But I spent $100 on her books.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 30, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"Palin raised roughly $2.1 million through Sarah PAC and ended the year with $900,000 in the bank." Spent the other $1.2 million on clothes.

Palin 2012
You Betcha!

Posted by: chucky-el | January 30, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

A wingnut and his cash are soon parted, looks like.

Well, that's Palin for you, picking the pockets of rednecks across the country, and they thank her for it!

Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | January 30, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

If we're lucky, maybe Palin will lead some kind of secessionist movement so that Alaska can manage its own energy resources, then we wouldn't have to deal with her anymore in the lower 48.

Posted by: ripvanwinkleincollege | January 30, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Palin; "I am the Virgin Mary", will no doubt attract her sheep. Let's all hope her golden vagina doesn't have teeth.

Posted by: swatkins1 | January 30, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

A recent poll showed 87% of Americans don't want Sara Palin to run for President. Go ahead give her your money folks, the joke is on you.

Posted by: kubrickstan | January 30, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

She's going to be every bit as good as Bush was!

I suggest we start recording everything she says on Fox and on the campaign trail.

Posted by: vigor | January 30, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to enjoy watching her make liberals' heads explode this coming year. She will light up this crap town like Vegas before she's done, and you all will have to sit there and take it!

Posted by: hinckleybuzzard

Her voice was certainly appreciated in the 23rd district of New York.

She didn't object to pro-choice Scott Brown did she? Now that she's settled in with her Down's baby and can't get any more political leverage from lugging the poor child around perhaps she's had 2nd thoughts about her anti-choice position.

You might want to ask her office why she didn't say anything about Scott Brown being pro-infanticide.

Posted by: James10 | January 30, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

A fool and his (or her) money are soon parted.

Posted by: thw2001 | January 30, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Go Sarah go!!!

Posted by: JakeD3 | January 30, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Palin's an idiot, and so are her KKK supporters. The same people that think she's going to win are the same people who voted for her and McCAin in 2008. And they got crushed.

Morons, she's preaching to the same choir. Are republicans going to be allowed to vote twice or something? lol. She'll splinter the vote, drive away independents and Reagan Democrats, and probably usher in another liberal.

Mission Accomplished. Hahahaha

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | January 30, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Think of all the scratch tickets that didn't get bought because of her.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 30, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

She may not be the best pick for the job, but worth her weight in gold for the way she enrages liberals.

Go, Sarah!

Posted by: NoWayNotNow | January 30, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

She quit her job in Alaska because 1)she knew she couldn't get reelected and that would've killed her chance for political office in the future and 2)she wanted in on the big buck tv conservative gravy train and the chance to make $100k giving speeches to grass roots conservative movements like the t-partiers. Plus, and it grieves me to say it, when the GOP regains power she'll be a big mouth player again. And the GOP will regain power. Americans have the patience of an autistic child and the memory of an advanced stage Alzheimer's sufferer. In four years we'll expect house prices to be back through the roof and the jobs market to be skyrocketing. Well forget it. This is why fundamentalist Islam will prevail (another grievous statement). They think in terms of generations, we think in terms of hours. And we see leadership potential in Sarah Palin. Stick a fork in us.

Posted by: tvanzandt | January 30, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

1.4 mil? That can buy a lot of shoes! You go girl!

Posted by: mstov | January 30, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to enjoy watching her make liberals' heads explode this coming year. She will light up this crap town like Vegas before she's done, and you all will have to sit there and take it!

Posted by: hinckleybuzzard | January 30, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

It's all about funny mental lust.

Posted by: whocares666 | January 30, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

It's all about funny mental lust.

Posted by: whocares666 | January 30, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

She can raise money, get visibility from her little Fox gig, blog, whatever...She is and always will be a fringe character more used to excite her shrinking half-literate base than ever be a broad-based viable national candidate again.

Posted by: nvamikeyo | January 30, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

She can raise money, get visibility from her little Fox gig, blog, whatever...She is and always will be a fringe character more used to excite her shrinking half-literate base than ever be a broad-based viable national candidate again.

Posted by: nvamikeyo | January 30, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

lol I was briefly confused about who Crawford was referring to when he was quoted "...just begun to tap the Governor's support." I forgot Palin served a partial term in Alaska!

At any rate it will be funny if she runs for President, I'm looking forward to the jokes.

Posted by: squier13 | January 30, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

P.T. Barnum was right.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | January 30, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company