Sparks Fly in Iowa


Pages: 1 2

All eight declared GOP presidential candidates appeared on stage at Iowa State University in a lively debate that featured genuine differences of opinion as well as some heavy criticism of Barack Obama. The candidates debated less than 48 hours before what is being touted as the first major test in the campaign: a straw poll in Ames where the candidates’ organizational strength will be measured by how many of their supporters they can bring in to participate.

The debate was also noteworthy for who didn’t participate. The expected announcement of Texas Governor Rick Perry on Saturday in South Carolina of his intention to enter the race threatens to alter the dynamics of an already fluid contest, while sucking some of the media oxygen away from the important straw poll in Ames.

The straw poll will feature six candidates — Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, former Senator Rick Santorum, former Governor Tim Pawlenty and Rep.Thaddeus McCotter. The history of the straw poll suggests that it won’t have much of an impact on who wins the Iowa Caucuses next January. But there is the potential for some surprises that might make or break a candidate or two. A bad showing for some of the second tier candidates would impact their credibility and their ability to raise money. It is likely that at least one and perhaps more of the declared candidates will drop out by the end of the weekend.

The debate, sponsored by Fox News, the Washington Examiner, and the Iowa Republican Party, saw sparks fly early and often. Candidates directed most of their fire at President Obama, but Mitt Romney came in for his share of criticism and the two Minnesotans, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Governor Tim Pawlenty, had several testy exchanges with Pawlenty criticizing Bachmann for what he termed her lack of a record while Bachmann charged that Pawlenty supported some of the policies of President Obama.

Pawlenty started the spat by accusing Bachmann of standing by in Congress while health care reform and other Obama proposals were enacted into law. “[H]er record of accomplishments and results is nonexistent,” said Pawlenty.

Bachmann shot back, listing issues to which Pawlenty appeared to agree with Obama. She said that Pawlenty “implemented cap and trade,” that he supported an “unconstitutional” individual mandate, and that he once said that “the era of small government is over.” The two combatants glared at each other as the exchange continued in that vein for several minutes.

Pawlenty must feel that he needs to open some daylight between himself and Bachmann, but his manner of doing so was perhaps too harsh. For her part, Bachmann more than held her own but seemed a little taken aback by the directness of Pawlenty’s assault. Both candidates righted themselves almost immediately and performed well for the rest of the debate.

Indeed, there appeared to be no clear winner for the evening. Mitt Romney made no major gaffes and seemed content to lurk in the background as the second tier candidates battered each other. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum criticized Rep. Bachmann for not going to Iowa to campaign against three state judges who ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage, and almost everyone criticized Ron Paul for his curious stance on Iran.

Paul is expected to do well in the straw poll on Saturday, given the passionate support he receives around the country and his impressive ability to raise money on the Internet. But his stated belief that Iran should have nuclear weapons if it wants them no doubt reminded voters that many of the Texas congressman’s views are not in the mainstream of the party and indeed, are “fringe” positions.

Santorum and Herman Cain performed well but did not get to distinguish themselves as they appeared to be shorted in air time by the panel of journalists asking the questions. Former Utah governor and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got plenty of questions directed his way, but his compatibility with much of the Republican Party is suspect. His answers showed him to be even less conservative than Mitt Romney, and he failed to adequately defend his positions on amnesty and gay marriage.

Pages: 1 2

  • Fred Dawes

    We have no opinion unless one of the candidates tell the people why the US Bankers boys to take on a debt of over 600 trillion in international debt and none will really tell you why.
    Ask all who voted for the super congress to take control against all our laws ask all why is it none will talk about the making of the new American Reich here and why all really want to control us like little worthless animal. ask any why the borders are still opened? and ask any why is it that the boys inside government love the ideals of allowing 2 million muslims per year to come here without any checking? asl question and all you will get is BS Obama is that evil rat the boys want to do the job of mass murder of all why stand up and say no to total evil.

    BUY GUNS Understand your enemy and stay low for now.

    • Angel

      It pains me to agree with you but it is beginning to look like a dog and pony show. I am more than a little nervous about our country's future.

      • coyote3

        You should be

  • mlcblog

    I am going to be fascinated, along with much of the country, by Sarah Palin's entry into the campaign in the not too distant future.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I like Sarah Palin enough, but nevertheless she supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants like John McCain, which constitutes amnesty in my book. Hence, she is out as for as I’m concerned, as I can’t support anyone that supports a pathway to citizenship and amnesty, but I think she would make a good energy secretary.

      • mlcblog

        OK So you are going to wait for the perfect candidate before voting?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          OK So you are going to wait for the perfect candidate before voting?

          Yep…after GWB, I learned my lesson. I don’t hold my nose and vote for RINOs under the guise of voting for the lesser of two evils.

          Well I certainly am not going to vote for anyone that supports allowing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants because if that happens it will inevitably give the Dhimmicrats a permanent majority. I’d rather shoot myself in the foot and suffer through another Obama presidency first. Indeed, I certainly didn’t vote for John McCain in 2008 because he was a RINO, and I certainly won’t vote for a RINO again if one wins the nomination.

          I know this may seem far out to you, but I’m actually more angry at the RINOs that have hijacked the Republican Party and morphed it into the second coming of the Dhimmicrat Party than I am at the Dhimmicrats. Hence, if the wrong Republican wins the nomination and that Republican is what I consider to be a RINO, I’m sorry but I’m not voting.

          Indeed, why should I help the RINOs to continue hijacking the Republican Party? Screw that holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils BS. That’s how the RINOs were able to hijack the Republican Party in the first place. I will never do that!

    • DogWithoutSlippers

      Mic, a thought just came to me………that Sarah Palin waits for Perry to announce and then announces some time after him to take the wind out of his sails – the media will be all over Sarah – she will get the juice! If she had announced already Perry's entry could overshadow her – smart lady! She can be America's Man On Horseback! After reading her books, listening to her speak I would definitely consider her for President. Now that would be real CHANGE!

  • John of Indonesia

    I'm not an American, not living there, but to an outsider like me the debate seems more like republic candidates debating about Obama more than themselves, I don't see how that could help them in election.

    • kafir4life

      John – watch how it plays out. Yes, they will go after obama. Wait until you see obama go after them. Had he been even a marginal President, he would run on his record of good, successful things that he's done for the country, but after almost 3 years, he has none. About the only thing he did that was positive (killing the leader of the muslims), wasn't even really done by him, but to hear him tell it, he was talking in the ear of the Seals saying "there he is. A little to your left….NOW!"
      Oh, and he did pick out have a cute little dog, but you really can't run on that. And that took him six month.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I’d like to see the topics of the debates broken up into component parts so that we can see exactly where the various candidates stand on the different political issues. Indeed, if you don’t break up the debates to cover only specific areas, you can’t really determine where the candidates stand relative to the others on the issues that matter.

    For instance, there could be debates focused primarily only on the economy, taxation, getting spending under control, a balance budget amendment, and the creation of jobs; another one could be focused primarily on immigration issues with respect to illegal immigration and pathways to citizenship, i.e. amnesty, and on Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage and whether or not it is compatible with Western culture considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants like clockwork always flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate no matter where it is they migrate; another debate should be focused only on foreign policy issues, so that we can learn, for instance, where the candidates stand on continuing to pursue fantasy based nation-building missions based off of silly political correct myths and idiotic assumptions like the ones made in Afghanistan and Iraq, or if they have learned from GWB’s incredibly stupid major strategic blunders. Also, where exactly do the candidates stand with respect to the permanent jihad of conquest being waged perpetually against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel, where the candidates stand on Iran’s potential acquisition of nukes and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal, where the candidates stand on the demographic conquest of Europe, America, and indeed the West, where the candidates stand on the global jihad and if they even acknowledge its existence, in other words, on everything and anything that the lamestream news media and Fox news always avoid reporting like the plague but are nevertheless critically important; finally another debate could be dedicated to environmental issues like global warming, cap and trade, environmental regulations, and a feasible energy policy.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      All quite true and also what about the Islamization of South America by
      Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist agents working with leftist governments.
      The drug cartels taking over Mexico and threatening border cities inside of
      America. Chaos seems to be spreading and can anyone point a finger at the
      central cause and there is one in my mind and I am waiting for conclusive
      happenings for surity. Also the giant question, where have the men gone,
      the patriotic American men who are quietly sitting back watching our world
      detioriate into socialist/islamist hell, where are they and when will they have
      had enough and who will stand up and enumerate the problems as you do and
      then speak the unpolitically correct deeds to be acted on and soon……..William

  • StephenD

    John Bolton for Pres., Marco Rubio Vice, Allen West Sec. of Defense, Bachman Treasury, Gingrich State…I'm sure you all can come up with an attractive ballot.
    I am convinced that our focus is in the wrong direction. As much as we want the W.H. we NEED THE SENATE and we need to maintain the House.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Can't we just dump the Senate, what good is it……it stifles the will of
      the American people and has lost it's usefulness I can't think of what
      they have been doing to deserve their paycheck. I like your picks and
      we may see a few surprises yet……………………………………William

    • Armando

      I prefer Bachman for prez, Bolton as sec of state and Allen West as sec of defense.

  • Sandy

    Why is Ron Paul's position on Iran so strange? N. Korea commits more atrocities against Christians and others and we don't make a fuss about their nuclear weapons. China is a communist country that has killed more of its citizens than any other country and we are servant (the debtor is servant to the lender) to them and they have nukes. Dr. Paul is not saying he "wants" Iran to have nuclear weapons, he is just saying we are not the policeman of the world and if we continue to antagonize them they will have more reason to hate us. If they are really a threat to us, more than Korea, more than China, more than the USSR WAS, then lets go out and nuke them into oblivian. If we are not at war with them, then lets live in peace with them and don't TRY to make them hate us worse than they already do.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Dr. Paul is not saying he "wants" Iran to have nuclear weapons, he is just saying we are not the policeman of the world

      Nobody is claiming that America is the policeman of the world other than Ron Paul and his merry ban of anarcho-kooks that are also addicted to always blaming America first. Paul loves to talk about freedom, yet he is too stupid to understand that freedom must always be closely guarded and preciously defended.

      and if we continue to antagonize them they will have more reason to hate us.

      You are as self-hating and as oblivious of Islam as that anarcho-kook Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Muslims never attack unbelievers because of what they do or do not do. Instead, they do it because they are obligated, per the sixth and most important of Islam, to fight jihad in cause of Allah against unbelievers to make Islam supreme.

      Indeed, Paul’s favorite blame America first story about blowback is utterly absurd when he asserts like a moron that the 1979 Iranian Revolution was blowback for the ouster of Mossadegh in 1953. However, Mossadegh was a non-Muslim unbeliever and had he still been alive back in 1979, he would have been among the first to be executed by the new Islamic regime.

      In fact, Paul couldn’t be anymore mentally incompetent when it comes to Islam, foreign policy, and to understanding what it takes to protect and defend freedom. You obviously are just as mentally handicapped.

      If they are really a threat to us, more than Korea, more than China, more than the USSR WAS, then lets go out and nuke them into oblivian.

      Iran, relative to Korea, China, and the USSR represents a far greater existential threat to the non-Muslim world, but nuking them is unnecessary when we can easily prevent them from acquiring nukes.

      If we are not at war with them, then lets live in peace with them and don't TRY to make them hate us worse than they already do.

      Sorry, but that’s beyond our control, Muslims are obligated to maintain nothing but enmity in their hearts for unbelievers. They are also obligated to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against unbelievers to make Islam supreme.

      • 0101010

        anyone who doesn't agree with you must by default hate themselves, real good reasoning.

      • Frank

        "freedom must always be closely guarded and preciously defended"

        The biggest threat to American freedom is the voracious appetent of federal government. The feds steal our liberty and property without a thought to the constitution. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who takes that threat serious.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          The biggest threat to American freedom is the voracious appetent of federal government. The feds steal our liberty and property without a thought to the constitution. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who takes that threat serious.

          Actually, all other Republican candidates for president relative to that anarcho-kook Paul more or less take that threat seriously. However, with respect to that loon Paul, he is even more self-hating and suicidal than BHO when it comes to foreign policy and protecting freedom. In fact, he excoriates BHO for being too hawkish. Indeed, Paul is obsessed with always blaming America first, which is why like Rev. Wright he claims 9/11 was America’s chicken’s coming home to roost. Hence, like sane and reasonable people marginalize Rev. Wright today, Paul should be marginalized too because of his insane self-hating political views.

          Fortunately, most people aren’t as narrow minded and narrowly focused as you are. If the USA ever guts the military and implements Paul’s anarcho-kook foreign policy, the federal government will be the least of our problems, since we will inevitably be subjugated into totalitarianism.

          Luckily most conservatives in stark contrast to Paul aren’t self-hating like Paul and his fellow anarcho-kooks. Thus, we realize that it is far cheaper in the long run to maintain a strong military as a deterrent than it is to fight and prosecute wars, and in those instances where our enemies can’t be deterred, like is often the case with respect to Muslims, it makes fighting wars far less costly since we can simply obliterate them far easier, faster, and cheaper.

          Our problem today is not that we spend too much money on defense because we don’t. In fact, today we spend less money on defense as a percentage of GDP as we have since before WWII. Our problem is our federal government, including our State Department, FBI, CIA, and Defense Department have all been hijacked and co-opted by leftists, and thus as a result our military is being abused today by the left for fantasy based social engineering projects in far away Muslim countries that couldn’t be more counterproductive and self-destructive because they are based on political correct myths and idiotic assumptions.

        • Robert

          Absolutely right on…..Paul is the real heavyweight mentally !! Ron Paul 2012!!! No question about it he’s the man for the times and his time is now.

      • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

        You’re just mad that under Ron Paul Israel would lose its free lunch. It’s the same as Cubans in Florida trying to bind the incumbent’s hands in order to win that state.

  • Cuban Refugee

    Michele Bachmann for President, with either Marco Rubio or Allen West as her V.P. Bachmann is a patriot, a constitutionalist, is supportive of the Tea Party, has an honest face, faith in God, and — notwithstanding the elite shrew Tina Brown's attempt to ridicule her on the cover of Pravda in magazine form — the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen. The rest of the slim pickings on the Republican side have murky pasts and associations, including the much-touted new addition. Say ENOUGH — BASTA!!! — to Washington politics as usual … where has it gotten us during the last few administrations? To a AA S&P rating, massive joblessness, and near Depression-era economy. We are in deep trouble as a nation — let us not fall off the precipice with another RINO leading the way off the cliff.

    • StephenD

      I understand your stance. I only disagree with Bachman for President because I don't see her gaining enough support to overcome Obama's machine. In a huge and important supporting role ~ absolutely! 1st time out…not for President. So far, you're right…slim pickings. Without knowing too much derogatory about him (John Bolton) and hearing him speak on many occasions, I think he has a good handle on what needs to be our direction. After all, the President should be more of a Director like a CEO rather than a dictator or spokesman like Obama.

      • Cuban Refugee

        Yes, Stephen, I agree with you that the President should have all the gravitas of a CEO; however, although Bolton is brilliant and an excellent communicator, if you research his internationalist leanings, you may change your opinion.

        • StephenD

          Thanks for the heads up. It is true and I say so that I don't know very much of him apart from hearing him speak on various issues. I stand to be corrected and I do like Bachman. Should she gain the nomination I'd vote for her.

  • Sandy

    Iran has never sent anyone thousands of miles away from their own borders to attack them. I agree with you that we need to protect and defend freedom. The primary defense of freedom is to defend our liberties against a tyrannical fed. govt. who usurps power from the individual and the individual states. It was the states that formed the fed. govt. not the other way around. All the wars that we are involved in in the middle east are illiegal. The pres. does not have the right to go to war without a declaration by congress. I

    • BumbleHuck

      Ron Paul 2012! No more wars for I$rael!

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Yeah right you paranoid bigot. Watch out…there is a Jew staring at you.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Iran has never sent anyone thousands of miles away from their own borders to attack them.

      Hmm…what about the two bombs in 1992 and 1994 that devastated the Argentinean Jewish community? The first one was a car bomb that obliterated the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires killing 29 and injuring over 250. The second one in 1994 was the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires killing 87 and injuring over 100. Apparently, like Ron Paul you are too obsessed with vilifying America for being a capitalist, interventionist, and imperialist country, whatever that is, as you loons fantasize about, instead of paying attention to world events and world threats.

      On top of that, Iran’s grubby hands were also all over the 9/11 jihadists attacks. Not to mention that it held 51 Americans hostage for 444 days with impunity. It was also behind the bombing of our Embassy in Beirut and the subsequent Marine Barracks Bombing that killed 241 Americans. Iran was also responsible for kidnappings, murdering, and hostage taking of many Americans in the Middle East during the decade of the 80s. In the 90s, Iran was also behind the Khobar Towers Bombing, which claimed 19 American lives, and it has been killing Americans with impunity in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the get go.

      I agree with you that we need to protect and defend freedom. The primary defense of freedom is to defend our liberties against a tyrannical fed. govt. who usurps power from the individual and the individual states.

      If the USA ever gutted the military as Ron Paul advocates and implemented his anarcho-kook foreign policy, the forces of totalitarianism would fill the gigantic vacuum we left behind so fast it would make your head spin, and then it wouldn’t take very long at all before America with its gutted military would become subjugated into totalitarianism.

      Indeed, as pathetic as it is, Ron Paul sees America as being the biggest bully in the world. In fact, he regurgitates old Soviet agitprop verbatim. Which is why he believes 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost, just like Obama’s Pastor Rev. Wright, another incredibly self-hating loon, as they both hate America with a passion.

      –continued

      • potb

        Don't forget the Iran-Venezuela connection.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          They both hate the USA.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      It was the states that formed the fed. govt. not the other way around. All the wars that we are involved in in the middle east are illiegal. The pres. does not have the right to go to war without a declaration by congress.

      Actually, I don’t support either fantasy based nation-building mission in Afghanistan or Iraq because they were incredibly counterproductive since they are both based on political correct myths and idiotic assumptions about Islam and were doomed to fail as result from the get go.

      However, unlike you and Paul I fully understand and recognize the existential threat that Islam represents to the world, while you and Paul couldn’t be more oblivious of Islam. Indeed, as for as you two anarcho-kooks are concerned, Islam is just another innocuous religion.

      In any event, I hate to rain on your clueless parade, butt Islam is far closer to Communism than it is to being religion, as just like Communism Islam seeks world domination, and the end result of Islam exactly like Communism is totalitarianism, poverty, despair, hopelessness, and lots and lots of misery.

      If Islam ever achieves its fundamental purpose and main goal, the world will enter a new Dark Ages it may never be able to climb out from, as Islam is a very retrograde force that would destroy all knowledge and technology on the grounds that it is un-Islamic. Indeed, what constitutes being un-Islamic? The answer is anything and everything not contained in the Koran and the Sunnah.

      Furthermore, I also understand that it is far cheaper for America to maintain a strong military for deterrence purposes in the long run than it is to have to fight and prosecute wars, and for when our enemies are too unhinged to be deterred, as is often the case with Muslims, it makes fighting those wars far less costly as we can quickly obliterate our enemies whenever that becomes necessary.

      However, I do not support nation-building missions under any circumstances whatsoever and especially when it involves Muslims, as we should always leave behind our death and destruction to fester and to serve as a deterrence and constant reminder of what happens to people who make the suicidal mistake of crossing America.

      One of the problems with our State Department and military establishment today is that they have both been hijacked and co-opted by the left. Hence, they are both being misused, but nevertheless that’s no excuse to commit national suicide gutting our military and implementing Paul’s anarcho-kook foreign policy.

      Finally, Muslims don’t hate us because of what we do or do not do; they hate us because Muslims are obligated per the texts and tenets of Islam to hate all unbelievers. Thus, the constant incitement to hatred and violence that takes place everyday in the Islamic world is not because of what we do or do not do, but instead a manifestation of that holy obligation for Muslims to hate all unbelievers. Indeed, the main goal of Islam is to fight unbelievers until Islam is supreme, and that would be extremely hard to do unless the Islamic world constantly and incessantly incited hatred and violence against us unbelievers.

      Hence, instead of blaming America first like loons, why don’t you Ron Paul anarcho-kooks study the history of Islam instead? If you do you will quickly cease being an anarcho-kook.

  • larryhagedon

    I will be at the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday. My vote will go to Herman Cain. His business turnaround experience is exactly what we need right now.

    I would like to see Michelle Bachman as Vice President. I believe she will make a good President in 2020, after 8 years as VP.

  • BS77

    THe topic that is the 800 lb gorillia in the room, no one wants to discuss: Illegal Immigration and excess legal immigration. I want to hear the candidates proposals. Ron Paul and Newt—time to quit….no point in going on as potential candidates or nominees….forgeddaboudit!!! Would like to see Rubio in the debates.

  • mrbean

    Whenever you have 8 candidates in a political debate and the media running it, it will look like a cluster f*&k each and every time.

  • http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna ShoshannaM

    In 2008 I'd never heard of Ron Paul, didn't know him from Adam's off ox, and was more than a bit perplexed when, while in Medford, Oregon, I kept coming across numerous groups of people holding "Ron Paul for President" signs– I couldn't quite figure out how it was that so many individuals in that rather conservative and extremely dreary small city were enthusiastically backing the election to the presidency of a middle-aged black drag queen. Seemed a bit odd…

    Eventually, of course, I discovered my mistake and realized I'd confused the politician Ron Paul with the marginally more entertaining Ru Paul– and after that, gave it no further thought. Until last night. After listening to his alarmingly naive– or willfully blind– views about Iran, I realized that if I were asked to make a choice between voting for Ron Paul or Ru Paul, I'd have to cast my vote for the latter, as I suspect the country would be considerably safer in the hands of a middle-aged black drag queen!

  • bleeponyrscreen

    Can't wait for 2012, it's going to be a giant circus. Republicans will be providing the clowns, and Obama will be the boring old elephant (that's what he's become, a republican in democrats clothing) just standing there, while the clowns circle him running/jumping/dancing around and making ridiculous statements. I feel sorry for this country, if only we people who governed instead of only fought for their own personal interest/gains. And I'm sorry to say.. but both parties are pretty much exactly the same. The 2-party system is a joke on everyone.

  • Ron Lewenberg

    Fox New did not allow That McCotter to participate. It is playing goal keeper today, just as it did in 2007 when it destroyed the Hunter and Tancredo campaigns, and almost succeeded in marginalizing Huckabee.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Fox News is definitely not conservative. While it isn’t as far to the left as the lamestream lapdog media, it is definitely not by any means conservative either. In fact, it is the lapdog media for the neo-cons that are RINOs and blue blood country club and establishment Republicans. Which is also why Fox was resorting to demonizing the Tea Party during the debt ceiling debates the other day

  • zsqpwxxeh

    All of this is irrelevant foreplay. These guys will melt away as soon as Palin announces. If you've been paying attention for the last two years, you must know that Palin is already the leader of the conservative movement in America, the leader of a rejuvenated Republican Party, and their nominee in 2012.

    Keep your chin up. She will sweep Barack Obama out of office in a landslide of Biblical proportions. 15 months to go.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Maybe …………..but…………somehow I always have a but when a woman is
      in a position that makes life and death decisions regarding warfare. I may
      be to old school but out of 300,000,000 people we only have a handful of
      people that could do the job, something is seriously wrong………..William

      • Fred Dawes

        You can see facts, thank you

    • http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna ShoshannaM

      I have to disagree with you about Palin. There are nowhere near enough die-hard social conservatives to carry the election alone, and Palin is anathema to everyone else– including Independents. She's unelectable, and the delusional fantasies of her true believers will not change this.

      I hope and pray that she does NOT win the Republican nomination, because the survival of this country is hanging on the 2012 election, and going into November the nominee MUST be someone with the credentials, gravitas, and appeal to convince a majority of the electorate to return a grownup to the White House and put an end to the disastrous mistake of history currently occupying the Oval Office.

      Who that person might be I really can't say, but it isn't Sarah Palin, and it never will be– what she has not done to herself (and that's been plenty), the media has taken care of, and in the perception of the general public her image is well and truly fixed as a hopelessly dimwitted, ludicrous lightweight who never read a book or opened a newspaper until McCain plucked her out of obscurity, and whose family is– to put it bluntly– trailer trash. Scream your protests all you want, they won't change the facts. And she doesn't help herself with statements such as her embarrassingly idiotic gaffe about Paul Revere. (Do you REALLY want this woman to be President?)

      Obama has got to go, and Palin is a non-starter. Let's focus on finding someone who has the brains, experience, and determination to do the job that needs to be done, and also the ability to get elected.

      The Republicans nominating Palin would just be the best and biggest present anyone ever gave Barack Obama, as it's the one thing that would guarantee his reelection. And that's something we absolutely cannot afford.

      • zsqpwxxeh

        I would respectfully invite you to research contemporary commentary on the 1980 election. Everything, literally everything, you say here is replicated, mutatis mutandis, in the criticism of Ronald Reagan. And he was down 20% to Carter in the polls in the summer of 1980.

        "Not enough die-hard conservatives to vote for him."
        "Independents reject him overwhelmingly."
        "Anathema to the middle."
        "Unelectable."
        "No gravitas."
        "A moron."
        "A failure."
        "A jerk."

        Etc.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I’m sorry but because Sarah Palin supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, which amounts to amnesty, she definitely isn’t conservative enough to pacify me. Thus, like I did when John McCain won the nomination, if she wins I will stay home and not vote.

      However, if she changes her position on that one issue and keeps per positions on the other issues, I would consider voting for her, but not otherwise.

      • zsqpwxxeh

        Nobody is trying to "pacify" you. Palin is as solid a conservative candidate as you're going to find on the national stage. If you want to stay home over your single issue, that's your affair. You will hand half a vote to YoMoma, just like you did in '08.

        Brilliant. As usual.

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    It’s fun watching Zionists haggle over whether a religious fundamentalist or a socialist would make a better President for America. Can’t we just settle this by finding out who AIPAC is bribing?

  • Fred Dawes

    I love this BS Its really funny

  • Abe Karpowicz

    I would like to see Israel wiped off the map for real :) The Jewish vermin must be eradicated if peace is to be established in the region.

    To hell with Israel!! :D

  • Amused

    Alot to be heard at the Iowa Gaggle Poopslinging Contest – "you supported Obama " ! , "no you did " – "did not " -Did Too " ….. and who comes out on top of this steaming pile ? A dominionist nutjob – Bachman . Add Perry of Texas , then you've got TWO DOMINIONISTS running . The Republican Party has gone off the rails . You guys may as well start your whining and handwringing now , And Ron Paul , an isolationist who thinks we should not give ANY aid to Israel …yea he's got a chance huh ? Does the Repo-con-teabag Party know what the word UN-ELECTABLE means ? As for Palin ?lololol maybe she'll stop by your "toyshop " .

  • Amused

    Gee , there really are some real jerks who think Palin's got a chance . Good Luck suckers . Who's your Mamma ? Obama . And you twits will ensure it .

  • http://www.squidoo.com/quiz-what-do-you-know-about-star-wars-lightsabers ways to get ripped

    Hi there, I discovered your web site by way of Google while searching for a related subject, your site got here up, it seems great. I’ve added to favourites|added to my bookmarks.