OMG!! Palin leads the GOP........but loses to Obama

Welcome! (0.00 / 0)

You hit the nail on the head. The response to almost any issue: "...the  Democrats don't have an answer."  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 13:35:29 PM UTC

yeah...but neither does the GOP (0.00 / 0)

The GOP is nervous because at least some of them know that it's always easy to oppose, but much harder to lead. They'll want to try more of their goofy tax cut games, but it won't fly. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Doug Coffin

---

by: Doug Coffin @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 17:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doug (0.00 / 0)

did Obama run out of Bush excuses and abdicate his throne? Isn't the POTUS aka CIC suppose to lead especially during the past 2 years when the Dems held a straight flush holding the executive branch, house, and senate?

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 18:50:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A common myth (0.00 / 0)

Craig, you're still laboring under the national myth that the President is supposed to be a "leader", in the manner of making national will happen.  That is a particularly right-wing affectation that too many on the left have bought into.  No, the President is the chief Executive, not 'Il Duce'.  He is supposed to execute the will of Congress, not tell Congress what that will is going to be.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 22:56:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So when (0.00 / 0)

the virtues of Camelot and the Kennedy's was being wistfully recounted, it wasn't about leadership of inspiring the people into a shared destiny of national will? Are you saying the Kennedys were right-wingers?  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 23:00:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, Craig (0.00 / 0)

Don't be silly because you know better than that.  'Camelot', the Presidency of George Washington and his cannot-tell-a-lie Cherry Tree, FDR and his New Deal (except for Asian folk illegally detained), Reagan single handedly beating up Gorbachev to end the Cold War, Mission Accomplished as long as my face-shooting VP tells me so Bush ...

No.  Leadership is not about "virtue" as regards the President.  It is about inspiring people to "shared destiny of national will".  At times, it's been about inspiring them to do really fucking awful things, like attack Iraq, torture prisoners of war, incarcerate the 'slant eyed' folk, trade weapons for favor with a bunch of people who blow up schools for fun, and bomb the crap out of South East Asia to stop a communist infestation that never happened.  Camelot?  That's a D&D destination.  Leadership comes from Congress.

No, the Kennedys weren't 'right-wingers', and I never said they were.  But then again, only one of the Kennedys was ever President.  So why bring up the whole bunch?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 23:32:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually Rob (0.00 / 0)

I didn't bring up the whole Kennedy bunch and their virtues.  Doug did in his remembrance post.  

Here's where you and I agree, 'It (leadership) is about inspiring people to "shared destiny of national will".'  

You might think I am laboring under the myth that this is the job of the president, but I do believe this is his larger role, not just tell Congress what to do, but get the people galvanized to tell Congress what to do.  According to Zogby, Obama's approval rating has fallen to 39%.  He is failing at job 1.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 23:46:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obstructions (0.00 / 0)

A dedicated minority in the Senate can thwart a lot of business, and friends like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman aren't much better than opponents.  

You know this.

Plenty of us are disappointed in the President; not because he didn't provide inspirational leadership to people who didn't vote for him and have wanted him to fail from day one, but because he spent too long trying, in vain (which was obvious to a great many of us) to win some few of them over.  He pre-compromised policies, in hopes of winning support that was never going to come.  And guess what, it didn't.  

Oh well, the Village liked the effort.  And now they like the next shiny thing: oh look, it's a tea party!

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 23:44:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The issue isn't Obama vs. Palin (0.00 / 0)

It's what happens if/when Michael Bloomberg decides to run as an independent. And he is showing all the signs of doing so, and his friends have said he will do so if he can see a road to victory. And I think that it is more than 50/50 that Palin gets into the race and wins the republican nomination.

You need 270 electoral votes to become president. In a three-way contest, if Bloomberg takes a few states, and no candidate gets 270, then the issue is resolved in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation voting en bloc. The party control of the 112th Congress is 33-16 states republican, with one state delegation tied.

If the House were to vote, then Palin most likely would get 33 votes. Enter President Palin, our country's first woman president. Two presidents have been elected in this fashion: Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825.

And I hear the poo-poo-ers already snickering. But that's what the Palin supporters are counting on.

---

by: JC @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 17:48:13 PM UTC

Woe back there a touch. (0.00 / 0)

Heilemann's scenario is plausible.  No one is poo-pooing that.  But it's also not very likely.  It's too simplistic, for one.  The moneyed interests who seem to be controlling our government at this point are not, I repeat, NOT going to let Sarah Palin win the nomination.  The 28%ers/Tea Party can't scream their way out of that fact.  Her 'unfavorables' are approaching 60%, over in some polls.

Bloomberg hasn't nearly the appeal that Perot did.  The beltway folk village people think so, but Bloomberg is easy to bury with the same 'elitist' attacks that will be used against Romney, by the liberals and Tea Party alike.  Americans still don't want billionaires to buy the Presidency.

Even if Palin were to get the nod (she won't) then it is no guarantee at all that the House would vote her President.  Think about it for a second.  President Palin steps in, tells Congress to suck her enormous ... power ... you betcha, proves herself the idiot that we all know her to be, and the Republicant party fades into obscurity for any foreseeable future.  Palin elected in 2012, veto proof majorities for the Democrats get elected in 2014.  Buhbye.

Meanwhile, the entire Republicant will is geared towards defeating that Kenyon in the White House, who is so very vulnerable because he's a spineless Kenyon in the White House.  The entire R narrative is that he can't accomplish anything, and they mean to make sure of it.  And he helps them with his slavish and stupid devotion to bi-partisanship.

So there's your choice.  Get what you want with an expendable Presidon't, or have a mad grifter woman make you all look like jackasses.  Now, Denny may not be good at much of anything, but he's pretty clear on electoral calculus.  How do you think Rehberg would vote, besides how the House leaders tell him to ... ~hickup, Schuse me ...~?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 23:16:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The path I talk about (0.00 / 0)

is just one of many. But you can bet that Palin and her handlers will be willing to exploit it to the max.

There are many others. And as the new electoral cycle moves in, things will come better into focus. I just think that it is dangerous for people to not acknowledge, or to laugh at the possibility of a president Palin.

The right laughed at the notion of the country electing a leftist (as he was portrayed) black man. The left should not be so foolish to laugh at the notion of the country electing a rough, and dangerously unpredictable woman.

Me? I want to see Obama get primaried by someone who will keep Bloomberg out of the race. Or for Bloomberg to run as a Dem. I don't think his wealth has any bearing on his electability.

---

by: JC @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 00:43:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

"I want to see Obama get primaried by someone who will keep Bloomberg out of the race."

I'm not sure I follow you here.  Take the few issues where Bloomberg and Obama actually disagree.  You think a candidate can beat Obama in Dem primaries running on those (ie, to his right)?

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 23:37:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2012 isn't going to be fought (0.00 / 0)

over the issues. It's going to be fought over a whole bunch of hyperbolic BS. It's going to come down to the economy. Economy good, Obama gets reelected. Economy bad, Obama goes bye-bye. Who fills his shoes is a huge toss up. WHich is why Bloomberg sees an opening to become prez, whether he runs independent, or in the dem primary.

---

by: JC @ Thu Nov 25, 2010 at 05:13:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]