| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Sarah Palin book Posted by: Perm Dude - [154552311] Fri, Nov 13, 2009, 15:58 Apparently she did the disastrous Couric interview because she took pity on Couric's "low self esteem." I'm not sure this explains her refusal to prepare for the interview but perhaps it explains her thinking as to why she didn't do many interviews. | |||||||
| 1 | sarge33rd ID: 1510141619 Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 20:30 | It doesn't matter PD. Those who live and breathe waiting on ACs every word; will eat this up like so much nutritional goodness. | ||||||
| 2 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 21:01 | I think it does matter. It mattered in the last election, helping to fracture the GOP, a move which is still echoing in the party. | ||||||
| 3 | Frick ID: 9103036 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 08:35 |
I agree with PD. I consider myself independent, but I lean more towards the right. Palin was the main reason I didn't want to vote for McCain. God forbid if he had died in office, she would have been the President. That scared the crap out of me. I agree that she is fracturing the Republican party, the far, far right sees her as all that is good, more moderates see her as a christian wacko. (Or at least that's how I perceive her). The best outcome I can see is splintering of the Republican party into 2 parts. The far right christian wing and the moderates. Hopefully a more moderate party would pull in some of the current independents and possibly some of the more moderate Democrats. As far as Palin's book? If it cracks a best seller list I will feel ashamed of our country. | ||||||
| 4 | Razor ID: 57854118 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 09:19 | Palin is the worst kind of buffoon: an arrogant buffoon. | ||||||
| 5 | sarge33rd ID: 511033178 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 09:34 |
I agree with you Frick re the book. Unfortunately, it has ALREADY cracked a best seller status according to at least one site. Palins book tops best seller list before hitting shops | ||||||
| 6 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 09:45 | Political books of this sort often crack the bestseller lists, mostly because of the way the lists are compiled (they count concentrated bursts of orders, but do not deal with returns, nor with sales over time). There is some doubt that HarperCollins will make back her advance. She'll need to sell something like 400,000 in hardcover to simply make back her advance. | ||||||
| 7 | Texas Flood ID: 7101698 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 10:17 | 4-you could say the same thing about Obama. | ||||||
| 8 | Pancho Villa ID: 381047158 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 10:18 |
Back in August. I started this thread, which centers on speculating the 2012 Republican presidential candidate. I came under fire for stating that Palin was the current frontrunner, but I feel more than ever that no other Republican is capable of eliciting the kind of rabid support and media attention that Sarah Palin can. Of course, translating that into the nomination remains to be seen, but any of the other aspiring candidates would be estatic to have that kind of national exposure. Underestimating Sarah Palin is a popular position, much like it was for Richard Nixon in 1965. What I find almost comical is that after all her whining about her treatment by the media, she's now being treated with kid's gloves. Anyone heard any claims that her resignation was designed to allow her to make millions of dollars that she would have never made had she quietly returned to Alaska and concentrated on the job that voters entrusted her with? | ||||||
| 9 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 12:21 | The fact that Sarah Palin represents, of sorts, a yahoo wing of the GOP doesn't mean she would be a good candidate. Even conservatives don't believe she should run, let alone be their frontrunner. | ||||||
| 10 | Seattle Zen ID: 1410391215 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 13:50 |
Re PD - post 9 Those are overwhelmingly negative numbers. Even Republicans are split on whether she would be an effective president. You can't even propose running for office with those numbers, who would be foolish enough to throw money down that rathole? Texas Flood - you may believe that the President is arrogant, but no one can honestly call a former law professor, the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review a "buffoon". | ||||||
| 11 | Texas Flood ID: 7101698 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 14:07 |
Zen, you are correct, and I stand corrected. Anyone who can completely take over the auto industry, the banking and health care systems in less than one year is certainly not a buffoon! | ||||||
| 12 | Seattle Zen ID: 1410391215 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 14:17 |
Zen, you are correct, and I stand corrected. Anyone who can completely take over the auto industry, the banking and health care systems in less than one year is certainly not a buffoon! Yep, that takes talent. | ||||||
| 13 | Razor ID: 57854118 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 14:25 |
completely take over the auto industry, the banking and health care systems in less than one year is certainly not a buffoon! Are you sure none of these are an exaggeration? | ||||||
| 14 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 14:50 | That is like saying that George W. Bush took over the rich people. | ||||||
| 15 | Pancho Villa ID: 381047158 Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 21:40 |
Breaking from Newsmax.com Sarah Palin Won't Rule out Palin-Beck 2012 Ticket It's no secret that former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck share great respect and admiration — so their fans can be forgiven for wondering: Is a "dream ticket" of Palin-Beck ticket completely out of the question? Makes you wonder why people who profess to hate Hollywood would mimic Hollywood so slavishly. | ||||||
| 16 | Farn Leader ID: 451044109 Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 21:43 | On behalf of intelligent voters everywhere, I hope that is the GOP ticket. | ||||||
| 17 | Pancho Villa ID: 381047158 Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 22:48 |
As preposterous as a Palin/Beck ticket would seem, it does bring up an interesting question concerning the fairness doctrine. It's one thing for shows to be infomercials for political parties, ala Limbaugh and Hannity, and quite another if the host is a candidate for national office. I think there would be a very compelling case that Beck would either have to resign from his show, or Fox would have to air an equal amount of time to his opponent. | ||||||
| 18 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 23:16 |
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the FCC in 1987 (and it was a good decision, IMO, for free speech and contextual reasons). Most stations continue to give lip service to "equal time" but I don't think FOX would be required, by law, to give any opposition time. I would think that the amount of time necessary to campaign might preclude a Beck candidacy from having much on-air exposure on his own show. But maybe just continuing to do the show as his campaign might actually be the way to go. Certainly he wouldn't have to expose himself to actual voters or disagreeable opinions. | ||||||
| 19 | walk ID: 291046510 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:17 | All of the sentiments that I have towards Palin are expressed here...all I can add are my feelings that it truly the boggles the mind that even a small minority of our electorate could possible think that someone of her ignorance and lack-of-intellect is capable of being a President. | ||||||
| 20 | Frick ID: 9103036 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:54 |
re:16 Why intelligent? Are only Democrats intelligent? I might not care for some of Obama's policies and directions, but a Palin/Beck ticket might result in the lagest Presidential nomination landslide ever. | ||||||
| 21 | Seattle Zen ID: 1410391215 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:16 |
but a Palin/Beck ticket might result in the la[r]gest Presidential nomination landslide ever. In the opposition's favor? Frick, go read the poll linked in PD's post 9. Not every Republican voter is "rah rah" over Palin and I have no idea just how high Beck's negatives could reach - there's a record in the making. | ||||||
| 22 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:25 | Perhaps Frick already means that it would be a landslide for the Dems. | ||||||
| 23 | Frick ID: 9103036 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 12:03 |
Sorry, I'm still looking for the sarcasm key. It would be helpful on the net. And as PD indicated, I think it would be a monumental win for the Dems. | ||||||
| 24 | walk ID: 291046510 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 12:31 | Yeah, while I think the Palin supporters are loud, I do not think they are proportionally numerous. I wonder in 2012 if the same proportion of young voters who came out in larger numbers than in prior presidential elections will come out again, whether they are for or against Obama. | ||||||
| 25 | Farn Leader ID: 451044109 Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 15:20 |
When I said "intelligent voters" I meant those who would appreciate not having to even consider one particular ticket. Rational Rep. and Dems would never consider that ticket seriously. So it would allow us to examine other parties for a change. The only downfall might be that the Dems would roll to an easy victory because the Reps didn't run anyone. | ||||||
| 26 | biliruben ID: 16105237 Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 10:07 |
Dumber and more vindictive than Bush... Ouch. Low-blow. | ||||||
| 27 | sarge33rd ID: 4910222013 Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 14:22 |
lmao at this comment below your link above bili: Sarah Palin is to politics as the Kardashian daughters are to entertainment. Draws a lot of lookers and some heavy breathing, but not a damn thing there. | ||||||
| 28 | Seattle Zen Leader ID: 055343019 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 01:24 |
 What's she doing with the hidden hand...? | ||||||
| 29 | Bauxman ID: 2110171217 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 05:51 | Hater. | ||||||
| 30 | Tree ID: 248472317 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 10:49 | what exactly is hateful about that cartoon? it's one of the most innocuous cartoons posted by SZ. is there anything about that that isn't truthful, that isn't what the bauxies and baldies of the world want? | ||||||
| 31 | walk ID: 291046510 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 10:55 | Yeah, I am not sure that cartoon is indicative of hatred...it's maybe "light satire." For shame, you, you "light satirist!" | ||||||
| 32 | Bauxman ID: 321149210 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 11:49 | You don't see the hate because you agree with that drug addict. | ||||||
| 33 | Seattle Zen ID: 1410391215 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 11:58 |
Hey, did you see that crazy fool covered in his own filth run through this thread? He's got warrants for his arrest. You can't be arrested for being stupid, so that's not it, must be something else. As for the tea bagger, he'll have to wait until 2017 until the Republican party can reimplement their policies to ruin our economy again. | ||||||
| 34 | Tree ID: 248472317 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 12:31 |
You don't see the hate because you agree with that drug addict. no, i just don't see the hate. since i'm an idiot though, please explain it to me. and if SZ is a drug addict, based strictly on his on-line persona and your on-line persona, i'd much rather have him as a friend than you, and that has everything to do with attitude and outlook on life, and nothing to do with politics. fortunately, i've met him in person, and he's an even better human in real life than he is on line. anyway - please. explain the hate in that cartoon to me. | ||||||
| 35 | Pancho Villa ID: 381047158 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 15:23 |
You don't see the hate because you agree with that drug addict. Like you and Rush Limbaugh. | ||||||
| 36 | DWetzel at work ID: 49962710 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 15:49 |
Dammit, Pancho, how am I supposed to come up with these witty yet perfectly correct statements exposing his obvious lunatic hypocrisy if you beat me to it? To everyone else... remember, wasting more than 1 pre-canned sentence on him is not worth your time. We've been over this. | ||||||
| 37 | Pancho Villa ID: 381047158 Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 16:16 |
As long as we're on the subject, let's define drug addict. AFAIK, Charlie(SZ) is a proponent for the legalization of marijuana and freely admits to enjoying its effects and using other drugs recreationally. That doesn't make someone a drug addict any more than the person who has wine with dinner most nights is an alcoholic. I don't know know how much weed Charlie smokes, nor do I care. Why should anyone care as long as he is productive and otherwise law-abiding. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has an addiction to a hard narcotic, an actual physical addiction. They don't call it hillbilly heroin for nothing. I'm suspicious that he continues to abuse these narcotics, since only yesterday he openly stated on his show: Mr. Obama was born and raised on the notion that this country is unjust and immoral, that it discriminates, that it is unfair, that it is bigoted, that it is racist, that it has stolen the world's resources. It is the cause of poverty around the world. He believes all of this. It is easily understood when you see him running around the world apologizing for this country. He is essentially thinking he's making friends by telling these people that hate us that he understands the hate and that their hate's justified. link Clearly this is the ranting of a drug-addled mind. Here's hoping Rush can be rehabilitated. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||