I can assure you he has a “regional accent.”

And I don’t think ANYONE could make a case against his intelligence. [with the possible exception of his incomprehensible loyalty to the Atlanta Braves]

complimenting you, right? I’ve been around long enough to know that accent bigotry usually earns a masterly smackdown from GC.

A sleeper troll?

Because I am not impressed with Palin as a figurehead for our party? Because she is too easily caricatured as lacking intellectual depth - and that’s the last thing the party needs right now?

I voted for a Democrat once in my entire life (and I vote every election). The one Democrat that got my vote was a candidate for NY State Assembly that ran unopposed. Even that vote was cast while I held my nose.

It is possible to think that going with a candidate that can successfully communicate an economic message (as opposed to shouting ‘One of us!’) is the best way forward.

Let’s take a look at what happened over the past couple of decades.

In the 1980’s Reagan successfully communicated an economic message. he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28 percent. He talked about lower spending and less regulation. He got his message across and won in a landslide.

In 1988, George H. Bush promised an end to the Reagan approach. He sought a kinder and gentler approach. He managed a victory largely on voter judgement of the prior eight years. But by 1992 the coalition was in shambles because Bush raised taxes and didn’t keep his promises and generally just caved to Democrats.

1994 and the Contract with America. Gingrich and company returned to basics and were rewarded with 52 seats in the House and control of that chamber and the senate. **This was the last time Republicans even bothered to try to talk about conservative fiscal and economic policies***

But after that…what happened? Dole was a squish and Clinton co-opted our message. We lost the presidency and we lost seats in congress.

1998 - the party focused on impeachment. Whatever one thinks of obstruction of justice and perjury - it was a stupid political strategy and one that allowed the Democrats to paint the GOP as obsessed with trivialities - and hypocritical to boot.

2000 - The party lost the suburbs and we barely won the presidency by a fluke. Thank God for “compassionate conservatism”. (Eye roll)

2002 - We won, but only because Democrats are so weak on security.

2004 - Same thing as 2002.

2006 and 2008 - The war did us in. But drunken-sailor spending made it worse.

So what does this all mean? Republicans win when they ARTICULATE conservative economic principles. Palin seems UTTERLY UNEQUIPPED to do this. When she spoke about the economy on the campaign trail it was nothing but vague generalities. She said that the Republicans are going to cut taxes on business and Democrats would raise taxes. That was true enough - but she never bothered to explain why that was important. It was like the idea escaped her. As shown above, it’s been a decade and a half since the party even spoke to economic issues. Palin didn’t even try and I get the sense that she didn’t even think about it.

It pains me to say that a large portion of the electorate WANTS businesses to be taxed just to “stick it to the man”. We need a wholesale reselling of economic conservatism and that’s the only way we are going to win. We have a golden opportunity now to teach the public and contrast with the Obama/ Democrat approach. The last thing we need to do is squander this opportunity with someone who can’t sell what we need to sell. THAT is why I am opposed to Sarah Palin and happy to see her leave public office.

Whatever else you’re trying to do here, you are doing a good job of demostrating just how thorougly the Left has programmed their useful idiots cranked out of the government schools and reinforced by the popular media and culture.

The “too many people are dying for lack of it” meme about health care is simply a lie, just like the “worst economy since the Great Depression” meme during the best economy in history during most of the Bush Administration. During Reagan, the Ds had the weak-minded convinced that all the children in America were either missing and pictured on milk cartons or were homeless and living in the back of cars and all the old folks were eating their cat food. But, mind-numbed robots like you believed it and now Comrade Obama is poised to turn us into a socialist banana republic. I’m confident that people like you will mindlessly cheer him on.

Excuse me, but you’re full of it. Or as I may more politely put it, you are full of the Dems talking points.

As far as corruption “eventually” getting the Dems”you are in a different time warp. They were corrupted by the leftists more than 40yrs ago and are doing quite nicely in the corrupt department today.

Second, the even more egregious remark you made, “too many people are dying for lack of it (health care) is bull. Where are the numbers to support such a flat out lie? Whole states are going bankrupt because no one is turned away from an emergency room. Try Japan, where you can spend the day riding around in an ambulance until finally some hospital will admit you. We have the best and most accessible health care in the world. Socialized medicine does not come close to giving you that. I can’t wait to see you and yours lined up waiting to see some medical person, and maybe get some care. You are fooling yourself and trying to fool others.

Really not much else to say, you’ve come here with a mindset that shows you aren’t worth the time and effort to have honesty as part of the discussion. Better get a real life in the real world.

grossly ignorant statements of non-fact and outright lies.

Most people want some kind of gov. health care? Says who? List a credible source in a link. “Power will corrupt them eventually”? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!!! They’d have to climb 80 rungs up the ladder of evil to even GET to corrupt! And you most certainly are a socialist if you are advocating that gov. has to do what individuals should be doing for themselves. People are dying for lack of health care? Prove it with a link to a source. What body count are you referring to?

If you don’t want to fund gov. with communist money, then you shouldn’t have voted for a communist.

nt

She will bring a big stick and start cracking heads and the good ole boy club does not like it…..

Who does the GOP think they can run against Obama in 2012???

And win???

Pointless argumement on your point. Unless of course, you are saying that Obama is just a celebrity.

David made. Hannity and Gingrinch do not “stumble and bumble” when the teleprompter fails. Obama does. They don’t hesitate and seem to be searching for words when there’s not one in use. Obama does. Hannity and Gingrich don’t appear to be lost without one. Obama does.

But you’re right on one thing. Nobody here really cares about the teleprompter thing. We care about his policies that are systematically taking over the economy piece by piece, nationalizing every major industry in sight, and taxing into oblivion the very people he expects to get the money from to pay for all of it.

at the RNC last September broke down? That’s right, she had to give the remainder of her 45 minute or so speech from memory. You can say all you want that no one cares about Obama and the teleprompter, but it’s just one more indicator of who the man truly is–he can’t go off written message lest he blurt out something that approaches the truth.

You know, stuff like “It’s time to spread the wealth around.”

I hope you won’t mind when we start harping on that as well.

---

 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”

I think your messiah, the great one, the barrack would disagree. The idiot simply cannot get past the ummmms and ahhhs without it.

If you weren’t so far out in lefty land, you could look at any number of wonderful videos that proves my point.

Damn, there’s that REALITY thing again.

“He’s also canceled your right to be held indefinitely without trial ”

You don’t keep up with the news, do you?

Because no one with any exposure to the news, even the MSM here, could have failed to notice that the right to be held indefinitely without trial has been upheld by the Obama administration.

So, yeah, you better get on that letter-writing thing, susieQ, because I’m sure that Barrack is just holding off his final decision on stuff like this while he waits to hear what you personally have to say about it.

As to my writing style, your own remark indicates that you would consider Obama unqualified for public office, too. Congratulations! We finally have one thing we agree on.

“He has canceled [sic] your right to be tortured.”

From the LA Times: “even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool. Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.”

One of these countries is France. I encourage you to look up France’s record on the rights of imprisoned combatants, esp. as it pertains to Algeria.

“He’s also canceled your right to be held indefinitely without trial”

Well, just recently, the Obama administration did hold up the right of the government to hold citizens indefinitely without trial (something that I disagree with, by the way).

Any other non-sequiturs you want to toss our way?

to attack and destroy private citizens who get in the way of what he wants.

Not only does he condone it from his supporters he engages in it himself when he names people who stand against him like Limbaugh and Hannity.

Enjoy it, susanb55, you weren’t careful what you wished for and now you have it. Payback, and there will be payback, can be a ^^^^^

Well, there’s no profanity. That’s good.

The value the degrees. The hard work to getthem - not so much.

There’s a ballsy sort of fecklessness to the purity of that stand. Intellect? Not so much. I guess it’s sort of like Justice Ginsburg. You sell the crack in all the liquor sores and lottery ticket vendors near populations of people the government doesn’t want around….

““Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.” - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Then the statists can quit worrying about “dumbing down” the electorate and just keep them in a drug induced stupor. What better way to win elections!

Tax the drugs? Hell, give ‘em away!

I zap him because the position is not effective.