69% of Republicans support 2012 Palin presidential run

[Pangloss]

No, the numbers support what I said.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/

 

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.

[jackson33]

No, the numbers support what I said.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/

 

Except for 'both parties', thought was backing up your point...I think you would admit a lot of Clinton voters (18 million) did set this election out or voted as Democrats!!! for McCain...As for those States in the article with higher turn out numbers, they also have the highest % of black population. When you consider the 'referendums' (in many States) that should have drawn very large groups, you end up with a low interest in either party, my opinion...

 

My 123m figure; did NOT include the 2m that voted for for the other 14 parties receiving vote in 2008 and which are also historically low.

[big314mp]

@jackson33: I'm thinking we won't be agreeing much...but what of it?

 

conviction: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence.

 

(a google search of define: conviction)

 

I'd say that represents close mindedness pretty well. The question then becomes, "Are convictions good or bad?" To which I would answer not always (in many cases they are good).

 

Unless you are Ted Stevens. /bad jokes

 

Getting back to Mrs. Palin, I'd like to bring up her suggestion to ban books from a library. Her unshakable belief that homosexuality is evil was so strong, that she felt the need to force it on other people. All of these moral issues that people should decide for themselves...she seemed to have this belief that she knew best. Which suggests she wasn't open to considering the alternative viewpoint (seeing as she was trying to ban them). That type of "I'm right, because of my beliefs and nothing else" has no place in politics.

 

When reading the above, keep in mind that I'm talking about all moral issues, not just homosexuality, which I just used as an example.

[swansont]

and how many democrat voters never turned up?

 

loaded statement that.

 

Not so much. The number of people voting democrat has steadily increased since 1980.

 

http://www.mexicanpictures.com/headingeast/2008/11/a-little-historical-perspectiv.html

[jackson33]

@jackson33: I'm thinking we won't be agreeing much...but what of it?

 

Getting back to Mrs. Palin, I'd like to bring up her suggestion to ban books from a library. Her unshakable belief that homosexuality is evil was so strong, that she felt the need to force it on other people. All of these moral issues that people should decide for themselves...she seemed to have this belief that she knew best. Which suggests she wasn't open to considering the alternative viewpoint (seeing as she was trying to ban them). That type of "I'm right, because of my beliefs and nothing else" has no place in politics.

 

When reading the above, keep in mind that I'm talking about all moral issues, not just homosexuality, which I just used as an example.

 

The Book Ban thing has been put to rest; The Harry Potter Books she reportedly wanted banned, had not been released and no books, including Potter have since been banned.

 

Her attitudes on Homosexuality or moral issues are based on her religion. Compared to Catholics or Muslim religions, think you will find mild but probably not much different than most Americans.

 

IMO; When running for or assuming office in US Government, religion should be left at the doorsteps of Congress or the White House. Congress people represent their districts/States and of course the P VP represent all of us and religious freedoms are purely INDIVIDUAL beliefs, no less than what color shirt to where or whats for dinner. They do however have personal (and they are) convictions and do represent people with many of the same ideas. Closed minded or an inability to understand another's viewpoint has no place in politics or in governing any society. I think Palin has demonstrated an understanding for this...

[big314mp]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/politics/animal/main4430259.shtml

 

That article sums up my view of Palin/book ban issue. I feel very strongly about the issue of censorship, so this particular incident carries a lot of weight on my opinions. Even if no books were banned, the desire to do so is unacceptable.

 

I will concede that close-minded is not the best phrase to describe Palin. I still believe that she represents something ugly in American politics, and I do hope that she doesn't get nominated in 2012.

 

I'll summarize what I see in Palin briefly (just to demonstrate what my views are founded in):

-A desire to censor pertinent issues

-A fundamentalist Christian belief system, which guides her policies (the first bit doesn't bother me, the second part does)

-Abuses of power (troopergate, trying to fire the librarian)

-Blatantly anti-intellectual (this is a position I see as being held by the right in general)

-Blatantly un-intelligent (Being able to see Russia is experience?)

[Riogho]

Riogho, do you consider yourself a platform Republican? I'm seriously curious about the dilemma I proposed in post #7 about the Reaganites. Trickle-down actually isn't horrible in practice (though it always made me shudder as a concept), but Reagan probably never figured so many jobs would go overseas, hobbling the effectiveness of the economics.

 

You've made your feelings known about the Evangelicals. How do you feel about the Neo-conservatives? Do you think the party has been splintered by these seemingly conflicted agendas? It certainly lead to some weird objections to Obama. He was simultaneously called an Islamic sympathizer, a communist, an atheist, a socialist, and a fascist in addition to being a liberal Christian Democrat.

 

I'm a really really weird breed. In a social sense I'm about as evangelical as they can get (born and raised in a Pentecostal church, still actively involved in it), but I don't vote based on that.

 

From a governmental sense I'm also very odd, because while from a pure idealogical standpoint I think that communism would be the best form of government ever, but I know that isn't possible, so the next best (in my opinion) is the opposite extreme. Well, not extreme, that would be anarchy, but as little government as possible. I would define my party as 'Libertarian' if I had any shot of winning any election at all, but I'm mostly a republican. I go on the belief that you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want (pursuit of happiness) as long as you don't bother anyone else in the process.

 

My politcal ideaology is based on a little idea that if you were walking down the street and you saw someone getting mugged and punched in the face, you'd feel terrible about him because he was being wronged. However, you could watch a boxing match on the television and not feel terrible. Why? Because the boxer chooses to be punched in the face, while the guy getting mugged does not.

 

So my stances on the issues are really effected by that. For example, I'm against the abortion, because unless you get written consent from the fetus I don't think you should kill it. While at the same time gay marriage doesn't bother me because they are both allright with sticking it in the other dudes bunghole.

 

Less government is good government in my opinion. I really do think the Bush tax cuts were good, and tax cuts not to the rich, but to corporations are a good thing.

 

Reagan was my favorite president, and I would really like the party that I identify closest to (Republican) get back to it's roots. I really liked McCain before he ran for president.

[Pangloss]

I think ultimately Obama may be the best thing that ever happened to "Reagan Republicans". His success will allow them to shed themselves of the cement boots of the christian right and give them the potential of returning to the ability to provide of level voice of reason and sanity amidst the hubbub of emotional and often faith-based conflicts that often arise from the left.

 

And best of all he doesn't even have to do that by failing and giving them an opening. He can do that through cooperation -- listening to their concerns and sitting with them at the table. He can do it by showing us the true value of opposing viewpoints, which is not conflict, but clarity.

 

---

line[/hr]

Did you all catch Paul Begala on Bill Maher's show Friday night? He had an amusing insertion to the subject line of this thread: "... and 100% of Democrats...". (lol)

[Severian]

I would support Palin running for the Republican nomination in 2012 too. I think the bigger choice of candidates one has in a democracy the better, and I think having strong women standing on both sides of the political divide has to be a good thing.

 

I wouldn't vote for her, but I would support her standing.

[swansont]

Her attitudes on Homosexuality or moral issues are based on her religion. Compared to Catholics or Muslim religions, think you will find mild but probably not much different than most Americans.

 

IMO; When running for or assuming office in US Government, religion should be left at the doorsteps of Congress or the White House.

 

I think that's my largest objection. People who, despite swearing an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, insist on placing the Bible above that.

[doG]

I wonder if this thread might fit more appropriately under Speculations...

[Phi for All]

I'm a really really weird breed.

You're weird in that you're consistent. I know quite a few Republicans who've been trying to juggle the Reagan/Evangelical/Neocon jumble unsuccessfully for the last 12 years. It leaves little room for a consistent, rational approach to politics.

 

Reagan was my favorite president, and I would really like the party that I identify closest to (Republican) get back to it's roots. I really liked McCain before he ran for president.

I can really respect that.

 

I think ultimately Obama may be the best thing that ever happened to "Reagan Republicans". His success will allow them to shed themselves of the cement boots of the christian right and give them the potential of returning to the ability to provide of level voice of reason and sanity amidst the hubbub of emotional and often faith-based conflicts that often arise from the left.

 

And best of all he doesn't even have to do that by failing and giving them an opening. He can do that through cooperation -- listening to their concerns and sitting with them at the table. He can do it by showing us the true value of opposing viewpoints, which is not conflict, but clarity.

This is exactly what I wanted to get at with my question to Riogho, but you phrased it much better than I would have. Very well said. Edited November 10, 2008 by Phi for All
fixed quote

[bascule]

I can't imagine seeing this sort of thing anywhere near me but would expect to see it quite frequently in the deep south:

 

[iNow]

Just shows how easily people put their personal idealogical preferences in front of what the country needs.

 

I mean, seriously... who the hell knows what will be going on with our country and our planet in 2012, and what problems we will be facing. Isn't it just slightly possible that there could be someone better suited for the job at that point in time?

 

But, nope. I don't care what's happening. I think this person is the best for the job b/c she's folksy, dont'cha know.

[jackson33]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/politics/animal/main4430259.shtml

 

That article sums up my view of Palin/book ban issue. I feel very strongly about the issue of censorship, so this particular incident carries a lot of weight on my opinions. Even if no books were banned, the desire to do so is unacceptable.

 

I will concede that close-minded is not the best phrase to describe Palin. I still believe that she represents something ugly in American politics, and I do hope that she doesn't get nominated in 2012.

 

I'll summarize what I see in Palin briefly (just to demonstrate what my views are founded in):

-A desire to censor pertinent issues

-A fundamentalist Christian belief system, which guides her policies (the first bit doesn't bother me, the second part does)

-Abuses of power (troopergate, trying to fire the librarian)

-Blatantly anti-intellectual (this is a position I see as being held by the right in general)

-Blatantly un-intelligent (Being able to see Russia is experience?)

 

I would oppose any book being banned from public libraries and feel its up to each of the 2000 plus school districts to determine what their kids are subjected to. The Potter books are today banned in many of them for being 'Satanic', however they got that impression. Troopergate, involved a domestic dispute (Palin's family) and even possible future candidates are entitled to dislike in laws. They have of course all been dropped or found unwarranted and now moot...

 

She is probably (not sure) very intelligent. Political handlers, especially those involved with the lead candidate (McCain) can be very restrictive to what advocates say, which is the job of all VP candidates. She does seem to have a little 'down home way' of articulating, but having known Dolly Pardon, I can tell you that may not indicate anything other than showmanship. Spent two years in Alaska in the 50's and don't recall anybody sounding like a Texan. Out of curiosity, would you give her any credit for climbing up from PTA, to Mayor, to a Governor with 80% approval rating, while married and the mother of five, ANY CREDIT???

 

As has been mentioned, what happens in 3-4 years is not really the important thing to concentrate on today. We have enough problems now, a new President and looks like plenty of countries wanting to test his resolve.

While all this is going on, under the table activity has already begun to pick and choose the 2012 people and frankly this means for Obama as well.

[big314mp]

I would oppose any book being banned from public libraries and feel its up to each of the 2000 plus school districts to determine what their kids are subjected to. The Potter books are today banned in many of them for being 'Satanic', however they got that impression. Troopergate, involved a domestic dispute (Palin's family) and even possible future candidates are entitled to dislike in laws. They have of course all been dropped or found unwarranted and now moot...

 

She is probably (not sure) very intelligent. Political handlers, especially those involved with the lead candidate (McCain) can be very restrictive to what advocates say, which is the job of all VP candidates. She does seem to have a little 'down home way' of articulating, but having known Dolly Pardon, I can tell you that may not indicate anything other than showmanship. Spent two years in Alaska in the 50's and don't recall anybody sounding like a Texan. Out of curiosity, would you give her any credit for climbing up from PTA, to Mayor, to a Governor with 80% approval rating, while married and the mother of five, ANY CREDIT???

 

As has been mentioned, what happens in 3-4 years is not really the important thing to concentrate on today. We have enough problems now, a new President and looks like plenty of countries wanting to test his resolve.

While all this is going on, under the table activity has already begun to pick and choose the 2012 people and frankly this means for Obama as well.

 

She certainly hasn't been cleared of troopergate. She was found to have conducted unethical practices. That doesn't sound like cleared in my book. What is more interesting, is that Palin said she was cleared, even when that statement was BLATANTLY false. I'm curious as to how you interpret that.

 

I give her credit for her rise to power. I respect her political acumen. However, political acumen does not automatically mean a candidate will be good for the country. Look at Hitler (DISCLAIMER: I am in no way saying that Sarah Palin is like Adolf Hitler) and his rise to power. He had brilliant political acumen, but when it came to running a country, calling him sub-par is an understatement.

 

As to the approval rating itself, I find Alaska a bit of a conundrum. Personally, I can't fathom how Ted Stevens (DISCLAIMER: I am not arguing that Sarah Palin is a criminal) is winning that election. Suffice it to say, I can't put myself in an Alaskans boots.

 

What I am arguing is that I hope Sarah Palin is not chosen as the republican nominee in 2012. I see this as bad for the country, as well as bad for the party itself. The republicans would do good to pick a small-government centrist, rather than bending to vocal neocons and evangelicals.

[jackson33]

What I am arguing is that I hope Sarah Palin is not chosen as the republican nominee in 2012. I see this as bad for the country, as well as bad for the party itself. The republicans would do good to pick a small-government centrist, rather than bending to vocal neocons and evangelicals.

 

Neocons and Evangelicals are usually Republicans and throw in Social Conservatives, you probably have 75% of the total. Republicans will never win w/o these groups, certainly not as its now constructed.

 

Small government and centrist, don't fit together. Centrist want government in charge of certain issues, according to the times and not much different then Democrats. Unless Obama, is a total idiot, he will serve two terms and were then talking 8 years. Who knows what will be needed then or if small government even be possible. Reagan, my personal favorite, actually increased government and GWB made Carter/Johnson appear to be small government advocates. I would like to know WHO or todays comparative person you think would be best???

[big314mp]

I would like to know WHO or todays comparative person you think would be best???

 

I'm a libertarian so I'd vote for Ron Paul. At least if I didn't live in a battle ground state. As it stands, I voted for Obama because I felt that the old McCain was gone, and that Sarah Palin was not presidential material. I felt that Obama would shore up his weaknesses with smart advisers.

 

I get the impression that you tend to vote republican. If so, on what specific attributes (i.e. small government, moral issues, just because they are republicans, etc.)?

[Severian]

Just shows how easily people put their personal idealogical preferences in front of what the country needs.

 

I disagree. It is a symptom of voters feeling disenfranchised by mainstream politicians. Palin being "folksie" makes people identify with her - they believe that she will represent their interests because she is like them.

 

There is no point in having a competent president who gets things done, if the things he gets done are not what you want done. Palin's possible incompetence is less of a barrier because (they think) at least she is trying to do good (and how can she be incompetent if she is governor of Alaska?)

[iNow]

Excellent point, and I don't disagree.

 

For clarity, I intended for my focus to be on, "How can someone possibly choose today who will be best in 2012?"

[jackson33]

I'm a libertarian so I'd vote for Ron Paul. At least if I didn't live in a battle ground state. As it stands, I voted for Obama because I felt that the old McCain was gone, and that Sarah Palin was not presidential material. I felt that Obama would shore up his weaknesses with smart advisers.

 

I get the impression that you tend to vote republican. If so, on what specific attributes (i.e. small government, moral issues, just because they are republicans, etc.)?

 

Please tell me you understand, there are ONLY two viable parties, which any candidate can be elected? Then please tell be which of these people has the understanding of just what our Constitution actually means to the purpose of government...Obam, McCain or Palin? If Obama, please tell me you understand he, as a graduate of Harvard, IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, has stated that the intent of the founders was, in short socialism through the process and/or court system, with emphasis on the COURTS. Then tell me McCain or Palin, who knew or believed in the Reagan principle would not have been a better and potentially electable choice?

 

I am sorry, what is moral to me means, only what it means to the majority. I have long realized my moral or standard for people may not be the best for future generations. As for taxes, the responsibility of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, I would not only trend Libertarian but support to no end their platform, if I felt they had a change, TO WIN AN ELECTION. I guess I am an idiot, but want my 1/200 millionth vote to count.

 

I may have been wrong, we may in the end agree on more than realized, but how to keep from getting to what is becoming a socialized government or the exact opposite of Libertarian, may be getting further from a reality and they garnered less votes this year than ever and with the most qualified than ever. Wake up, roses still smell nice...

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd support Palin running in 2012, so that Obama is guaranteed his second term On the other hand, I'd like to see what she is like when she is not a subordinate, as she didn't seem to do very well as the VP. She can't be nearly as dumb as the media portrays her.

[big314mp]

Please tell me you understand, there are ONLY two viable parties, which any candidate can be elected? Then please tell be which of these people has the understanding of just what our Constitution actually means to the purpose of government...Obam, McCain or Palin? If Obama, please tell me you understand he, as a graduate of Harvard, IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, has stated that the intent of the founders was, in short socialism through the process and/or court system, with emphasis on the COURTS. Then tell me McCain or Palin, who knew or believed in the Reagan principle would not have been a better and potentially electable choice?

 

I do realize that the system only supports 2 viable parties. Living in Ohio, this is drilled in every single commercial break.

 

Now, as to my reasoning on my presidential choice:

 

To me (I'm going to catch flak from ParanoiA for trying to define the presidency ) the role of the president is to be the face of the nation. That's awfully vague though. His job is to sign treaties, conduct negotiations, and to lead the military, should force be needed. A secondary job of the presidency is prodding congress to actually fulfill an agenda of some sort.

 

On the first point: I want a president who is level headed, calm, and highly intelligent. Obama was the perfect picture of level headedness. Obviously he is intelligent, as he went to Harvard. McCain has something of a temper, so I'm a little wary of him representing our nation on the world stage.

 

On the second point: Obama can only push through what the congress will pass, so saying Obama is a socialist is more or less meaningless unless you also demonstrate that congress itself is decidedly socialist. In any case, the republican party is not a particularly good example of fiscal responsibility. So on this point, Democrat vs Republican is a frying pan vs fire decision. IMO, the republicans had their shot and screwed up. Time to let the other party have a shot at it.

 

On a personal level: I have a strong distaste for lies on the campaign trail, and the sheer volume of ridiculous crap the McCain campaign tried to shovel though my TV disgusted me. These weren't subtle things, these were blatant, open faced misrepresentations of Obama's policies. I didn't see that from the Obama campaign, leading me to like (for lack of a better word) them more.

[jackson33]

I'd support Palin running in 2012, so that Obama is guaranteed his second term On the other hand, I'd like to see what she is like when she is not a subordinate, as she didn't seem to do very well as the VP. She can't be nearly as dumb as the media portrays her.

 

Hope you saw 'Greta' last night or will watch tonight. Part's 1 & 2 of her post election interview with Palin....

 

By 2012, you MAY change you change your attitude on Obama...

[Mr Skeptic]

So on this point, Democrat vs Republican is a frying pan vs fire decision. IMO, the republicans had their shot and screwed up. Time to let the other party have a shot at it.

 

About that bolded portion. I'd appreciate it if you didn't help perpetuate the two party system by talking like that. I was talking to my grandma recently, and she didn't even realize that there were other people running for president. Makes me wonder how many people don't even know there are more than two parties.