Allah:
Jim Geraghty wrote this morning that the tea-party era began on Tax Day 2009, the day conservatives protested in cities across the country, but plenty of Palin fans will tell you that it actually began eight months earlier, when Palin flew into Dayton to accept John McCain’s offer to be his VP. That wasn’t a tea-party campaign by any stretch — it was pro-TARP, pro-amnesty, pro-cap-and-trade, and all McCain — but it made Palin a national figure. And she was, unquestionably, the biggest Republican name associated with the tea party for years afterward. Cruz has a passionate cheering section among grassroots conservatives but he’s never been beloved the way Palin was. She was “one of us.” The nerd from Harvard and Princeton never will be, no matter how many “Duck Dynasty” ads he puts out. Only Trump has built a cult of personality on the right during the Obama era as passionate as the one Palin enjoyed from 2009 through 2012. In that sense, today’s endorsement is appropriate. Cruz is the better conservative. Trump is the better populist. Palin’s made her choice.
If the Dayton speech was the beginning of the tea party, today’s speech in Ames is the end. Drop the curtain.
“I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president,” Ms. Palin said in a statement provided by his campaign…
“I am greatly honored to receive Sarah’s endorsement,” Mr. Trump said in a statement trumpeting Mrs. Palin’s decision. “She is a friend, and a high-quality person whom I have great respect for. I am proud to have her support.”…
Mrs. Palin, who despite her waning visibility within the Republican Party retains a sizable following, provides Mr. Trump with valuable new currency at a moment when he is being attacked over his conservative bona fides by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, with whom Mr. Trump is neck-and-neck in the Iowa polls.
As Mr. Trump fends off questions about his “New York values” from Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Palin could help vouch for Mr. Trump’s credentials with skeptical conservatives.
Charles Cooke is reminding people on Twitter of this passage from one of his columns written a year ago, five months before Trump announced his candidacy:
For a long while now, Palin has not so much contributed arguments and ideas as she has thrown together a one-woman variety show for a band of traveling fans. One part free verse, one part Dada-laden ressentiment, and one part primal scream therapy, Palin’s appearances seem to be designed less to advance the ball for the Right and more to ensure that her name remains in the news, that her business opportunities are not entirely foreclosed, and that her hand remains strong enough to justify her role as kingmaker without portfolio. Ultimately, she isn’t really trying to change politics; she’s trying to be politics — the system and its complexities be damned. Want to find a figure to which Palin can be reasonably compared? It’s not Ronald Reagan. It’s Donald Trump.
You can hate that the tea party has deteriorated into Trumpism and you can curse Palin for enabling it, but you can’t say she and Cruz are a better match politically than she and Trump are. I agree with this from Ross Douthat:
To me it meant another day of Trumpavision the media is eating this up he gets more free advertising.
Two circus acts that belong together
@Rich Wheeler: At least Palin isn’t a compulsive liar like Obama and Hillary. She was also successful in her elected office unlike the latter two.
@another vet That would be your opinion AV.—Certainly not shared by all—her national negatives are as high as Trumps’
Trump is rolling around in Palin’s endorsement just like he was rolling around in Putin’s praise – both re-mindful of a dog’s penchant to roll around in poo for the joy of sporting a new “flavor.”
Get it?
Both are worth $hit!
If this clown wins the presidency, our country will have truly gone to the stinking dogs, and we will get what we deserve.
In the end, no one will come out smelling like a rose.
Sarah Palin was very impressive when I saw her in 2008, when she came to my part of Colorado in the closing days of the ’08 campaign. Though she gave a rousing stump speech, Colorado was already lost. McCain-Palin had already written off the state by pulling resources to focus elsewhere. Also, the enthusiasm she and McCain brought as their first campaign stop, months earlier, was rather muted.
Like all things, politicians have a past due date (see Jeb). We’ll find out soon enough if she still has the persuasive power to reinvigorate the stalling Trump campaign.
Trump may think he counted coup with Palin’s endorsement but the problem is that the TEA Party has lost influence in the last couple of years and that is who Palin draws. On top of that, the Palin family has turned into the Kardashians of the political world. Her endorsement may serve as a turnoff for those who have come to see her as just another opportunist looking to keep her own name in the headlines.
John Wayne’s youngest daughter also endorsed Trump with the family who runs the John Wayne enterprises coming out today saying she only speaks for herself, not any John Wayne foundation or those [family members] who run them.
Headlines that state the GOPe would rather have Trump than Cruz is not going to bode well with anti-establishment types. Remember, Trump’s book is Art of The Deal. What kind of deals would he be willing to cut with Pelosi and Reid is the big unanswered question.
@Rich Wheeler:
All of which is artificially generated by the corrupt left wing media… the same media that does not dare bring up the fact that Hillary is under FBI investigation… one that just got a whole lot worse.
@George Wells:
We did nothing so onerous to deserve Obama and what he has done to the country. No matter who is better than Trump, he is 10,000 times a better candidate than Obama.
Were it not for the recession in 2007, McCain/Palin could very well have won. Though McCain was in no way responsible for the downturn (nor Bush that much, for that matter), the party in power takes the hit. Note that the Dow is, right now, down 450 points and that this is no anomaly. While I would not expect the corrupt media to pin the economic failure of the past 7 years on Democrats, it will still be very difficult to wash that stink off a Hillary or Bernie, particularly since they both offer the same failure, only worse.
@Rich Wheeler:
I realize that as is your opinion of her and your opinion of Obama. Her “clout”, if you want to call it that, is definitely nowhere where it used to be so her endorsement won’t amount to much of anything. I will say at least she never went overseas to a continent where hundreds of thousands of Americans shed blood and apologize for “American arrogance” nor did she call Bowe Bergdahl a hero nor did she throw in with OWS, moveon.org, or Code Pink which is why I don’t take too much stock in anyone who falls head over heals for Obama or Hillary. And so there is no misunderstanding, I know you don’t fall head over heals for Hillary.
Through Trump has brought much needed focus on the cultural suicide of allowing 3rd world mass migration into the US, I am very disturbed by the fact that the GOPe are making noises that they prefer Trump to Cruz, if the various op eds coming from WaPo and NYT are to be believed. One of the articles from WaPo made the editorial comment that the GOPe views Cruz as being “too principled”, and that Trump can be negotiated with.
And the GOPe wonders why they are losing so much respect from conservatives….
@Bill#8:
“So onerous?”
As opposed to what???
You deserved Obama because you put a has-been and a clown up to run against him in the first place. What did you expect? It wasn’t even close.
Now here we go again. The democrats have a choice between two of the absolutely worst two candidates they’ve managed to come up with in decades, and the Republicans’ LEADING candidate is dancing with Putin and Palin! Did you see the headline under the full-front-page-photo of Trump and Palin arm-in-arm?
“I’M WITH STUPID!”
@George Wells: You gotta just laugh at people who voted for Obama… twice… willingly repeat every lame excuse they are given for his failures, excuse his lies (while accusing everyone else of lying), excuse his racism (while accusing everyone else of being racist)… when these people call someone else “stupid”.
Stupid is as stupid votes. And, you will vote for Hillary. Or, you will vote for Bernie. Why? Because they have the best lies and you leftists LOVE to be lied to.
@Bill #12:
And you WILL vote for whichever candidate the GOP “process” nominates, because you are dead certain that that very worst Republican is infinitely better than the best Democrat. Blind bigotry is so much easier than critical thought, and I appreciate your need for elementary simplification.
Never mind that Trump is really an embedded Democrat, a megalomaniacle buffoon and a borderline idiot all rolled up in one impressively convincing caricature of a clown. Never mind that you’re equally willing to close YOUR eyes to the lies belching forth from the lips or YOUR candidates… the pandering lot of them.
Politicians are ALL crooks – you didn’t forget that, did you?
But when your lightning-rod-of-irrationality (Palin) cozies up to Vladimir Putin’s pick for our next Commander-In-Chief, and YOUR party gets a woody, you lose room to laugh at THE MAJORITY of the electorate who twice approved of Obama.
At this point, the worthy candidates are all doomed – either they’ve already withdrawn or they’re about to, and the LIKELY prospects are ALL crap. On both sides. Either way, we’re screwed.
Like I said, we reap what we sow.
@George Wells: Here’s your opportunity to lay out what Trump’s lies have been. Also, which GOP candidates are crooks and what has been their crime. Also share the evidence of the bigotry.
The caricature you speak of is a product of your own corrupt media. Keep in mind, this is the same media that made Obama to be a viable choice for President, a non-failure, has shielded Hillary and, when the time comes, will never mention how Bernie feels about women and will redefine “socialist”. In other words, only an idiot would draw their conclusions from anything the corrupt, liberal MSM offers.
Let me know how Putin has chosen the C in C while you are at it.
Indeed, the worst Republican in this field would be better than Clinton, Sanders OR Obama.
@Bill #14:
In all honesty, I’d rather leave you in darkness, in the hopes that you will continue to embrace Donald Trump and support his candidacy as much as you can. If you don’t understand why, all the better.
And for the same reason that I never attempt to disillusion a Christian (or an adherent to any other religion, for that matter) from his or her faith, I respect your blind faith in the perfection of each of the current Republican contenders. An enlightened enemy is much more dangerous than an ignorant one…
Bigotry? That one is too easy to pass up. The unquestioning faith you have in these Republican contenders (except for Trump, who really isn’t a Republican…) -and your categorical dismissal of every and ALL Democrats as inferior to the worst possible Republicans – more than adequately meets the definition of a bigot. Why ever would I go to the trouble to supply you evidence against a Republican when you have already issued an a priori disqualification of anything offered? We’re all “idiots,” remember?
Yes, you’re an unrepentant bigot, and no, you’ll never figure it out.
That pretty much wraps it up.
@George Wells: That is Mr. or Mrs. white privileged racist, bigoted, well armed, mostly better informed conservative to you and I may refer to you as kool-aid sucking progressive tax and spend ill informed happy to be kicked and robbed liberal ….ok? (luvs ya George, I really do) 😉
@kitt #16:
Ahhh… But you don’t REALLY know me, do you?
Aren’t you just falling into the same sloppy stereotyping habits that the other lazy fools are accustomed to around here?
I happen to be white and financially “privileged” (as you put it), consider myself to be reasonably racist (appreciating that some may dispute the association of those two words) and, at my age, understandably bigoted as well. Like Bill, I haven’t the time left to sort out every nuance of what’s fair.
Aside from the obvious difference in sexual orientation, Bill and I stand uncomfortably close on most issues that Republicans hold dear. I’m just not quite as sloppy as Bill, who concluded on the sole basis of my vote for Obama for a single, over-riding, selfish reason (I’m gay, wanted marriage privileges and saw them coming) that somehow I’m a “LEFTIST.” I’m assuming that he’s so desperately pressed into cutting intellectual corners because he’s simply a good bit older than I am and he’s in a great hurry because he sees the light at the end of the tunnel.
I have a Smith & Wesson 357, but I think that there’s a reasonable limit beyond which the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give citizens the right to carry weapons of mass destruction.
And maybe it’s just because I’m old, but I think “political correctness” is a crock of BS. Our armed forces have to be “treated nicely” by their “instructors” in boot camp so they don’t get their feelings hurt – I wonder how they’ll do when they get shot at?
I support the death penalty, but I see some measure of inconsistency in people who support the death penalty but want to outlaw abortion. I think that either life is sacred or it is not.
I am a fiscal conservative, but I’m not evangelical.
I even support the attempts to legislate “religious freedom” that the “Left” is so vehemently opposed to.
I desperately want the Republican Party to pull itself together, build a coalition that can challenge the Democrat’s coalition that has learned how to win national elections WITHOUT actually dealing with issues, and survive strong enough for our country to remain a two-party entity.
But Bill’s stuck in a mental rut, obsessing on my Obama vote and the gay marriage it got me, and he takes all of my discussions as personal affronts.
Don’t let yourself be that lazy.
The world isn’t that simple.
@George Wells:
Why didn’t you simply write, “Sorry, Bill, but I just went off like an idiot, throwing random accusations and charges out at those that are challenging my dream of an ongoing liberal failure that Obama began. Actually, I have no specific facts and, like the typical liberal, just threw stuff out to see what stuck. I feel so utterly stupid… you got me, you called me on it and I had no answers.”
NOW you can show me where I ever stated, hinted or implied that any or all of the Republicans were perfect or anywhere close. The fact that they are every one more competent and capable than any of the current or possible Democrat candidates in no way implies perfection… it takes far, far less than perfection to exceed what you have and will support.
Once again, you fall far short of the mark, Georgie. When did I include ALL Democrats in my assessment? You have Bernie, Hillary and O’Malley to choose from. At the most, you MIGHT have Warren and Biden on the buffet later. NO A ONE of those is capable of running this nation any better than Obama has and Obama has failed miserably. Bigotry is an unfounded and general denigration of a group based on beliefs… my analysis is based on performance, positions and statements.
Oh, and if you vote in a leftist regime, even for one selfish goal, you then own that regime. Or, you can take the opportunity to denounce it, point by point, since you say there is only one point you support.
So, to summarize, you are like almost every other liberal we hear speaking…. you simply repeat what you are told to repeat by the corrupt media, without thinking, without consideration, without doubt. Inevitably, someone will demand you back your accusations up with facts and, as happened right here, you throw out crap like, “well, if you don’t know, I certainly can’t tell you”. Basically, to follow your ideology, it is a requirement to be full of shit.
@George Wells: Whoops looks like my Joke went over your head, I get in these moods where Sometimes I will get a bit goofy with my posts Its up to the reader to figure out if I am serious or just messin with one of my favorites.(and I have a few favorites here on FA)
I dont think ALL democrats are inferior but the top 2 in this election sure are, the more republican scream Trump isn’t conservative the more Dems call themselves independent and bail to Trump. I cant say dear Sarah s going to help that.
I think that all of our resident trolls and many others fail to understand what Palin’s endorsement means to Trump and Tea Party people. Trump is much smarter than all of the candidates running for President. He is on every TV and Radio station every day. He gets free press. His mannerisms has propelled issues into the public eye that otherwise would not have been addressed. (did you see that the administration has changed the visa policy for European visitors to the US a few days ago?)
Everyone else is taking firm stances on specific policies. Trump is vague. While others are forced to change their views, trump glides over the issues. The primary goal here is to get elected. The electorate is so disgusted with the status quo that they will elect someone who does not want to fail and who does not owe anything to other politicians.
Nearly everyone has dismissed the Tea Party and Palin as a factor in elections and government. They are viewed as a far right group. In fact, the Tea Party is not a group at all, but millions of people from both political parties who want less federal government and more say in their local and State governments.
Palin opened the flood gates for Trump. Others are following. Trump has actually built things that work. He is much more than a community organizer. He knows he is not smarter than everyone else. That is why he hires the best to make his vision more specific and accomplish his vision. Failure by them is they get fired! I believe there are many people who are not participating in the polls yet they can support Trump. Most do not like the way he is attacking others and give him negatives on that. I do not think they will allow superficial negative thoughts to overcome their desire for productive change from the disaster of the Obama administration.
@Randy: “Most do not like the way he is attacking others.” Ya think.
This charlatan is a classic bully–I grew up in N.Y with draft dodgers like this. Like all bullies, his day will come.
Randy ,this is the same guy who ran as a Dem. and then as an indie .I’ve watched him for over 30 years. He can’t even believe his hateful shtick has so much traction. Don’t bet on this SELF PROMOTING showman ever being POTUS of our great country.
Sarah brought in to hurt Cruz in Iowa—she’ll hurt Trump if it goes to G.E. I expect Donald will send her back from whence she came.
Kitt You are correct—Trump will move towards the middle once SEC primaries completed. He is about winning no matter what it takes. Sarah will be “disappeared” at that point
@Richard Wheeler: You missed to point. Trump isn’t moving any where, left right or center. He is someone who wants to accomplish the rebuilding of America. He doesn’t have to cater to a constituency. Palin kept him in the news while others were spending millions and going no where. You are trying to peg Trump as a politician. He is not. He just knows how to get things done and is doing so quite nicely. He has you snowed!
@Randy: Col.–I think you are the one he has “snowed.”
@kitt #19:
Sorry if I disappointed you. I’m not clairvoyant, and my computer receives no feeds from your post from which I might glean audible or visual cues hinting at comic meaning not evident in your written message. Remember that when you write while in a humorous mind, your amusing thoughts remain locked in your “goofy” head unless you spell them out. Your effort to be artistically obtuse may have succeeded in tickling your own funny-bone, but as a point of communication it failed.
@Richard Wheeler: Put your money where your mouth is. How about your monthly income against mine. Your problem and many others are trying to put Trump on the right or left. He is neither. He owes no one anything. That is why the right is fighting him and the left is attacking him. Palin served as a 3-4 day free publicity on every media outlet. You watch and I will send you the address for you to send the check.
@Randy #20:
Trump’s candidacy has unquestionably contributed a significant amount of entertainment value to the current events relevant to the 2016 election. People are watching the evening news who have no personal interest in either the issues or in voting – they are simply being vicariously thrilled by the drama Trump creates in the same manner as are people who watch programs like “The Housewives of Atlanta.” There is no educational value to such entertainment – it is pure escapism.
Trump’s candidacy has also influenced the political conversation in a positive way. He HAS successfully called attention to issues that were considered too dangerous to be tackled by more conventionally-minded politicians, although the solutions he has personally offered are either overly simplistic or grossly impractical. Still, because he has garnered so much media attention, his poor ideas are receiving more press than the better ideas offered by less popular candidates, and that is probably a net disservice to the electorate.
Trump’s candidacy has also inflamed a serious schism in the Republican party. Trump did not create this conflict – it was alive and well during both the McCain and Romney candidacies, and is marked by an apparently irreconcilable difference between the “Establishment” side of the GOP that thinks that some compromise is tolerable, and the “Right Evangelical Base” side that thinks otherwise. The GOP’s reluctance to come together to form a winning coalition cost them the 2008 and 2012 elections, and it has the potential to do the same thing in 2016. This problem is neither Trump’s nor Palin’s fault. It is the consequence of the Party’s decades-long program of pandering to its far right base in exchange for readily donated cash. After faithfully donating – seemingly forever – to fight losing cultural battles, that “base” is fed up with the failure of its elected officials to deliver on their fund-raising promises, and this base – predominantly the so-called “Tea-Party” – is ready to back a candidate with NO political experience. I wonder if they’d also want to hire a plumber the next time they need surgery…
As Randy so succinctly pointed out: Trump has no constituency. EXACTLY!
A President needs to represent ALL Americans, not just some of them, and CERTAINLY not NONE of them! With such an inconsistent history of party affiliation, how can anyone rationally anticipate anything this man might say or do?
As surely as Palin killed McCain’s chances in 2008, her garbled association with “the Donald” will likely put ANOTHER nail in the coffin-lid of Trump’s White- House bid. But she’ll boost the ratings!
@Bill #18:
What, exactly, does that mean?
Does it mean that if someone EVER votes for a Democrat, they are a Democrat for life? Or are they a Democrat for just that election cycle? Or maybe for just the month that the election was held in?
“Own” a “regime”?
Did you “own” the G. W. Bush “regime”?
I’m not finding the logic there…
Every politician and every administration make plenty of mistakes – nobody’s perfect. But those mistakes are not “owned” by the voters who elected them. Voters don’t go to jail for politician’s crimes, and voters don’t get impeached. Maybe in the minds of Tea-Party terrorists, it would be better if they were, but that’s not how it works.
Haven’t you EVER voted for a Democrat?
(Because if you haven’t, it pretty much proves that you DO believe that the worst Republican is ALWAYS better than the best Democrat, and that pretty much proves that you’re about a bigoted as they come.)
If you HAVE voted for a Democrat, did that make you a “Leftist” and for how long, exactly?
And when I’ve voted for Republican candidates for the presidency – which I did – did that make me a “rightist”? Or does your “Once-a-Leftist, Always-a-Leftist” logic only work one way?
See how silly your “Black-and-White” world is?
There ARE shades of gray…
@George Wells: tsk tsk tsk why no sense of humor at all?
watch this again and listen to what the wife says at the end, try get the reference.
If putting a winkie at the end isnt enough you are lost
nm
@kitt #28″
I enjoyed the Laurel & Hardy clips – was always fond of them – but I don’t get any precise reference relevant to this thread. Laurel is Palin and Hardy is Trump and they’re both high on a placebo?
Sorry. I’m a retired scientist, and we don’t always think quite like other people.
(You will notice that I didn’t say “…like stoners.”)
@George Wells: actually I was thinking Laurel was Trump and what was in the bottle they drank it was Palin…cold tea. Does he really think she is the good stuff?
I have a small collection of L&H that was true humor
“The piano” reminds me of MSM trying to get Hillary elected.
@Randy: On Fox tonight Trump called himself a politician. I’ve got $100 bet one month ago with mm for POTUS. I got Cruz he’s got Trump–With you I’d need Cruz OR Rubio vs Trump for POTUS $100–you O.K. with that?
@George Wells: Put it in this perspective; to get your gay “marriage”, the world got ISIS. That’s the sum of it. Your selfishness vs the lives of hundreds of thousands.
Hey, I don’t mind being linked to the Bush administration. It grew the economy, overcame terror attacks and kept the nation safe. Though it was reducing deficits before the recession, it did spend too much (mostly linked to the war on terror that was thrust upon it). The Bush administration was not perfect, but would I be ashamed of a vote for Bush or a vote for Obama? Well, let’s see.
Obama created almost $10 trillion in new debt and has accomplished…. what? The military is shrinking, the economy is languishing, health care costs are skyrocketing and poverty is spreading. Oh, but we got gay “marriage”. Yeah, that was worth it. I would lie and say I voted for McCain if I had voted for Obama.
As to Trump, Republicans should be taking a clear lesson from his campaign; it is possible to stand up for principles and overcome what the left wing media can do. For most politicians dependent upon donors of various persuasions have to tip-toe around issues such as immigration, radical Islamic terrorism, entitlement reform or gun control. If they can’t show significant progress towards their goals quickly, the corrupt media in alliance with the left will demonize them out of existence.
Trump simply ignores that. He says what he is thinking at the moment and when what he says resonates with a majority of citizens, he is able to overcome what the media assault tries to do to him. The only people paying any attention to the left wing demonization of Trump are those lemmings that have no decision-making capabilities and are merely waiting for the media to finally decide who their candidate will be.
I am coming to believe that Trump, despite whatever kind of candidate or leader he might prove to be, if he shows success, could very well provide the confidence of other politicians to overcome the fear of political correctness, the fear of being accused of this sin or that by the left and media, and go forth and speak their minds and accomplish their agendas.
Nothing has done more damage to this nation than the corrupt media, for they and they alone enable the failure of liberalism to curtail progress, growth and national defense. Trump is an indication that that evil power can be overcome.
@Rich Wheeler: I am not sure what you are proposing. I am saying that we can not classify Trump as a Democrat or a Republican. I am not predicting who will win. I am saying that everyone is trying to find a place to fit Trump into a slot. When he is assigned a slot, then everyone can stereotype him. I am saying that he is unique and doesn’t fit into a slot. When Palin endorsed Trump, Her endorsement resulted in the equivalent of $ millions in advertising that Trump didn’t have to spend, but his opponents needed to spend $Millions to combat. The point you and many others are missing is Trump and his campaign process are not consistent with tradition. He and his campaign process can not be evaluated using traditional criteria. I have no idea if it will work, but it is capturing the support of many people. That is what I am seeing and would bet on.
@Randy #34:
A sensible assessment well put.
@Bill #33:
The flaw in you logic is revealed when one has the sense to remember that fundamentalist-inspired terrorism has existed in the Middle East for thousands of years, and that the current administration was not and is not the cause of it.
And how convenient that you dropped your absurd “Once-a-Leftist, Always-a-Leftist” line of reasoning. At least you have enough sense to abandon the kitchen when it gets too hot…
I can agree with this on its face. If Trump were to “succeed” (not something I anticipate) and IF whatever he accomplishes turns out to be things that make more Americans happy than not, it WOULD encourage mimicry. However, those conditions would be rather difficult to achieve, I suspect, for three reasons. First, with a seriously divided GOP, he faces an up-hill battle to win the Republican nomination, and that secured, he’d have an even harder task to get elected, the ignorance of the average voter notwithstanding. Second, once elected, I’m not sensing that the non-politician that he is would have an easy time of securing the necessary cooperation of all the career politicians in the congress. (As Obama has convincingly demonstrated, the President can accomplish precious little without the help of Congress. Executive orders are a sadly ineffective substitute for legitimate legislation.) Third, since Trump actually has no “constituency” in the traditional sense, I’m not convinced that anything he might actually accomplish will be recognized as being “successful” by the constituents of either political party. There is a point beyond which being an outsider ceases to be an advantage, and that point is reached on Inauguration Day.
@Randy: Trump is running as a Republican. I’d classify him as a Populist/Narcissist–makes BHO look self effacing.lol–.
Would ask you and Bill to read Pete’s well researched #4 in “Trump let’s get a little establishment——-”
I think we’ll know a lot more about both races after we see Iowa and N.H. vote.
George–well said
@George Wells:
But ISIS didn’t exist in numbers greater than around 700 until Obama, the Gay “Marriage” Warrior (once his support slumped to the point where he needed to pander some different groups), pulled all the US troops out of Iraq. No one else likely would have taken that specific action, particularly in light of all the advice Obama had NOT to do it. So, while somewhat hypothetical, it can be reasonably argued that without Obama in power making stupid decisions, ISIS would not be controlling much of the region.
The problem with predicting Trump’s success or failure is that all the predictions are made in the context of normal political processes. Trump ignores all that so, while pundit after pundit predicts his demise for this statement or that action, he only gains more support. I support much of what he says and does but not all… pretty much like any other candidate.
@Bill #38:
A rose by any other name is still a rose. No, “ISIS” is new. And before ISIS there was Al Qaeda, and before that, the Taliban, and on and on back into ancient history. The names change as new generations of terrorists replace old ones, but the dynamic never changes. Neither does the inclination to blame those living today for problems that existed long before they were born. As long as this tradition is kept alive, the cycle of ignorance remains unbroken and history can be depended upon to reliably repeat itself ad nauseam.
But blaming is what you do best, isn’t it? Obama won the 2008 election while he still resisted pressure to support gay marriage, and he won that election by a margin far greater than the total number of all gay voters. Gay voters weren’t going to vote for Republicans in significant numbers because the GOP was ALREADY on record as resisting ALL gay rights measures – as if the small numbers of gay voters had any bearing on the election one way or the other – so it really didn’t matter what Obama did or didn’t do for them. His “evolution” on the issue was more a matter of his playing catch-up to Biden, who got ahead of him as a matter of conscience, NOT as a matter of political expedience. ALL of the Democratic candidates lagged behind the public’s support for the issue, but at least they did listen. You think that they “pandered,” while I think that they represented their constituents. Is there really a difference?
@George Wells: At any rate, Obama has been an utter disaster, both domestically and internationally. In addition to the lives lost as a result of his incompetence, millions more are threatened and will be for decades to come.
Nothing can possibly justify that.
@Bill #40:
Your “sky-is-falling” assessment of Obama’s presidency turns a blind eye to the facts that he HAS delivered on a number of his campaign promises, and that the lives of millions of Americans who DID vote for him have significantly improved over the past seven years as a result of the work he has done. The Clintons failed miserably in their efforts to reform health care, but Obama succeeded. The ACA is far from perfect, but it has brought care to millions of Americans who had nothing before. You may not agree that health care is a right, but I find it odd that a country that is willing to indemnify financial security in retirement won’t indemnify health care.
I don’t need to defend Obama to you. You won’t ever admit that he’s accomplished anything positive because it conflicts with your dogma. But fact-checker organizations have evaluated his accomplishments against his campaign promises, and they agree that he has delivered on many of them. By the end of his first term, he’d already accomplished enough that most of the people who voted for him in 2008 voted for him again in 2012. That his agenda conflicted with yours is about as moot a point as exists – Obama did much of what he said he would, and it is reasonable to consider that a quid pro quo reward to the constituency that voted him into office.
And Obama was no more an “utter disaster” than G.W. Bush was. Both were rewarding enough to their constituencies to earn a second term, and both were considered “utter disasters” by the opposing parties.
The sky hasn’t fallen. The “End of days” is not upon us. Ideas rise and fall in popularity just like civilizations come and go, but the course of history turns on the actions of extraordinary leaders or on the greatness of ideas, and Obama’s contributions haven’t been all that remarkable. Trump seems to aspire to greatness, but I think he lacks a precision of intellect that is necessary to reach that goal. Yes, he’s been a successful real estate developer and he’s good at self-promotion, but I’m suspecting that he’s already reached his level of incompetence. The sloppy stumbling that has thus far characterized his campaign gives me no confidence that he might be able do better down the road, should he win. I hope we never find out.
I disagree. The TEA Party “era” had it’s beginnings with Ross Perot and the Reform Party. It is my belief that the Reform Party was purposely destroyed from within following the presidential election. I think it would be interesting to interview TEA Party supporters and discover how many of them also supported Ross Perot.
@Ditto: Sure, Obama has been a resounding success. That is why more tax dollars keep getting funneled into the health care exchanges to prop them up, why more providers are bailing, why costs are spiraling upward. Because it is so wonderful.
Obama kept his promise to fundamentally transform the US… into a target. However, what about his promise of honesty, integrity and transparency, which all have far reaching implication on the rest of his agenda?
A leader’s success is rooted in the personnel he chooses to carry out his policies. Obama chose ideologues which NEVER brings out the best and the brightest. Trump would definitely choose capability over ideology and would definitely hold them accountable for lack of production. When one is too afraid of what evidence people might reveal to hold them accountable (unless they were following orders), you get what we have seen for the past 7 years; federal employees rewarded for corruption. Trump would most definitely not be guilty of that, as has become a policy of Obama’s.
No, please, don’t bother defending Obama and his ruinous record. Spare me . I happen to prefer the facts.
@Bill:
I don’t know who’s post you are responding to, but it can’t possibly be mine. Where in my post could you possibly point to my even mentioning Obama or his administration?
@Ditto: I have no idea how I did that… that was to @George Wells:
@Bill #43:
Costs are “spiraling upward” because medical and pharmacutical research continues to develop increasingly expensive high-tech diagnostic tools, procedures and boutique drugs that the legal profession bullies insurance companies into paying for. Have you never had a doctor first give you a diagnosis that happened to be right AND THEN order ten thousand dollars worth of CAT scans, NMR’s, PET scans and the like to provide a high-tech corroboration of his good judgment JUST in case he missed something that would give you or your heirs the inside track for a mal-practice win in court? Do you really think it’s SANE to ask the people who pay insurance premiums to foot the million-dollar bill every time a baby pops out at eight ounces instead of eight pounds? Or to pay for obscenely expensive drugs and rounds of radiation in the futile attempt to marginally postpone the death of a patient suffering from a stage-4 metastatic cancer (much less miraculously cure such a patient)? You might THINK that such a cancer patient has a right to abdicate any remaining vestiges of dignity and spend the last months of his or her life having fecal matter roto-rootered by Hospice attendants instead of taking the Hemlock route, or even that such a prolonged bout of suffering is somehow morally superior to a quick and painless finale, but I’m not comfortable making the rest of us pay for your CHOICE, and it isn’t Obama’s fault that so many of us make that same, selfish mistake.
And you base this fantasy on the quality of minions who are currently ill-advising him, who are creating astonishingly flawed advertisements on his behalf, and who are tweeting such nonsense that even HE has to apologize for their mistakes? The fact that Trump’s bombastic “You’re Fired!” trademark caught on in the popular vernacular doesn’t prove that he has a talent surrounding himself with people more skilled than he (Palin, LOL), and his financial history contains little to suggest a pattern of consistently good judgment. Neither does his over-stated net worth suggest an inclination toward transparency.
And what bearing do the facts relating to Obama’s presidency have on Trump’s worthiness? This thread’s topic is Palin’s Trump endorsement. Palin’s dismal legacy includes quitting her governorship, being a lousy parent and losing to Obama – she’s not exactly a stellar example of our “best and brightest.”
@George Wells:
So what you are admitting is that aside from kicking 7 million off the insurance they had and likes (count me as one of those), Obamacare has not accomplished its stated goal of reducing the cost of healthcare.
Got it. Already knew it, though.
IF Trumps operates the Presidency as he has his businesses, he will, by definition, hold people accountable for failure. Obama has not… in fact, he rewards them assuming that abusing the IRS, VA, BLM, HHS and national security is considered a failure by this administration. By the way he treats the people responsible, it seems more like by design.
Palin quit her governorship (which disqualifies her from holding further office with me, by the way) was due to left wing harassment of her, her family and the state of Alaska. I understand her decision but if she cannot stand up to the vile, despicable, filthy tactics the left uses, she would not be able to withstand them in the future because that is what the left does (something you obviously give your stamp of approval…. as long as you benefit personally). Aside from that, Palin has failed at… what? How about what kind of parents Bill and Hillary have been? Aside from the example Chelsea’s father has made (whom she adores, by the way), has she not turned out to be the antithesis of what a good, caring liberal should be? Wealthy hedge-fund manager? You seem desperate to find some fault with Palin other than the left wing mantra (consistently disproven) that she is “stupid”. Stupid is believing what the left wing media says about ANYONE without independently confirming it.
Trump is thousands of times more able and worthy than Obama, Hillary, Biden, Sanders, Warren, O’Malley or whatever other refuse you might want to toss in. And Trump is not even the BEST.
Bottom line is you will willingly and dutifully support whatever throw-back the Democrats foist up if you can receive your little pay-off… regardless of what it does to the country.
@Bill #47:
Do you really think that anyone with half a sense believes that America is ruined because an additional tiny fraction of one percent of the population has won the right to marry? Since you’ve been parroting this bankrupt idea endlessly to no advantage, wouldn’t it be a bit smarter to invent some other, more believable excuse for how badly you evidently believe things are?
I am admitting nothing of the sort. What I am stipulating is that more people are now insured than were insured prior to the Affordable Care Act, and that these additional beneficiaries are not on average paying for the additional benefit themselves. Stands to reason someone IS paying for these benefits. The taxpayers who previously were footing the bill for wasteful emergency room care for the indigent ARE receiving some relief from that direction, but we all pick up the bill one way or the other when the poor get a free-bee. It’s the dreaded “income redistribution” that Republicans loathe and that socialists welcome. If Americans don’t want it, they have the power to vote it into oblivion. But although “reducing the cost of health-care” sounds easy, the only marginal savings that could come from increasing the ranks of the insured might come from economies of scale… but those most likely would all be absorbed by insurance companies padding their bottom lines. And with the demise of oversight and regulation of insurance company profits (smaller government, remember?) do you really think those companies are going to willingly donate those profits back to their customers instead of passing them along to their shareholders? My advice to you would be to buy some stock in health insurance companies. That way you recover a bit of your excess premium payments.
And thanks for ignoring my explanation of why health care costs are REALLY skyrocketing. When the cost of a single procedure exceeds the entire lifetime earnings of a patient, and when that procedure becomes the new “standard” for treatment and insurance companies are legally required to pay for it, how can the cost of health care NOT skyrocket? And how does Obama have ANYTHING to do with that?
You’re just a partisan hack, parroting the dogma your party distracts you with. If you would bother to engage your OWN brain for a minute, you MIGHT figure out that:
#1. There is a benefit to EFFICIENTLY providing health care to the indigent (as opposed to encouraging them to mooch off of the rest of us by clogging emergency rooms) in spite of the fact that we still have to pay for it, and:
#2. The incremental increase to net health care costs coming from that line item is dwarfed by the increase in health care costs that result from technological advances and new drug development.
But then again, a bigoted mind would remain blind to this obvious truth like the horse that is led to water but refuses to drink. So much more ideologically convenient to mono-dimensionally blame the problem on Obama.
@George Wells:
You got gay marriage. (time lapse while I do back-flips and throw confetti)
The world got ISIS. The world got a new, expanded war on terror. The world got the Iran/Russia/N. Korea triumvirate. The US got 1.5% growth. The US got 10% REAL unemployment. The US got $10 trillion in new, wasted debt. The US got racial strife at a level not seen since the 60’s.
I don’t know… aside for that 1%, I’d say this was a bad bargain.
Despite all the hell Palin was put through by the leftist MSM during the 2008 election, I lost a YUGE amount of respect for her when she tried to blame her son’s arrest for beating up his girlfriend on Obama, for her son’s alleged PTSD. There is a lot you can blame Obama for, but the choice soldier Palin made to beat up a woman after one freaking deployment to a 3rd world muslim hellhole has NOTHING to do with Obama, and everything to do with his lack of self-control. I am so damned sick and tired of whiney little girlymen trying to avoid responsibility for their own stupid actions by crying about bogus PTSD. I did 3 tours (which is NOTHING compared to the guys who did 5 or more tours, or to the men who were at D-day, or Da Nang, or Verdun…) but I saw my share of human misery and death. Never did I come home and beat my wife, my children, nor anyone else. Palin’s son needs to turn in his man card, and she needs to be ashamed of herself for such a pathetic statement. It drags down legitimate criticism of Obama for his leftist failures and stupidity into the mire of politically partisian hackery no better than anything spewed from the mouths of Clinton supporters.