Sarah Palin: Two Predictions

YouTube Preview Image

Based upon the above ad, and other signs, I think it is clear that Sarah Palin is going to run for President.  I have two modest predictions to make if she does get in:

1.  She will win the Republican nomination.

2.  She will beat Obama decisively in the general election, gaining over 300 electoral votes.

129 Responses to Sarah Palin: Two Predictions

  • 1.) I doubt she will even seek the nomination.

    2.) If she IS the GOP candidate Obama will win in a landslide.

    3.) Why are we even talking about this? The election is 1.5 years away. My proposal: no primaries until after 4th of July, then conventions after Labor Day.

    Better yet, no primaries at all. I don’t see we’re better off with the pee-pul choosing candidates than when party hacks were in charge.

  • She’s become too polarizing. I don’t think she’ll get very far if she runs for office.
    Maybe she can hope to become the Secretary of State…

  • No Thomas she will run and she will crush Obama. With his numbers today and the wretched economy, which I think will only worsen by this time next year, almost any Republican could defeat him, but Palin, who I think has more raw political talent than anyone I have seen since Reagan rode off into the sunset, will humiliate him.

    Our election system is what it is. I see no great virtue in short campaigns, especially when major issues are at stake, and this election will have no shortage of these. However, I like politics which I realize makes me an oddity among most Americans.

  • I think she is “too polarizing” because the media has made her appear so. She is far less polarizing in reality that, say, Obama.

  • The news media will do everything in its power to ensure Sarah Palin is defetaed. They cannot stand a conservative Christian woman, especially one who is beautiful and shows by that beauty how godlessly ugly their liberal feminist sexual perversion is.

    I wish Don’s predictions would come to pass, but that’s more hope than reality.

  • They did that in 80 against Reagan Paul at a time that the lamestream press had far more credibility and a near monopoly on news. Their being in the tank for Obama, as they clearly were in 08, will work to Palin’s advantage as they have no credibility left with the vast majority of the American public.

  • It won’t happen as long as the negativity of “I don’t think she can win” talk keeps up..You think ANYONE is just gonna walk in & take it? Your gonna have to have faith pray then work like a dog to make it happen..She is gonna run,,she will beat Obama as long as WE DO OUR PART! She was ONLY ONE fighting against Obama the last three yrs..men put your ego’s aside-women put your jealousy aside..remember Moses led the people to freedom and he was mocked because he studdered..She is good decent hardworking woman that is not owned. This may be our last shot of saving our country..She has NO ties to oil,pharma,wall street,banks,muslim brotherhood…They fear her cause she WILL bring down entire foundation they spent 100yr sbuilding

  • 3 Years of Attacks:

    attempt to burn her church down, accuse her of murder, 1,000s death threats, 40+ reporters sent to AK for e-mail dig, Dozens of CNN, CBS, NBC, NY Times “polls” saying negs are high / not liked etc., Obama “media” repeating Can’t win a general, to divisive, obama landslide win & promote bachmann & perry to keep her out!!

    ALL THIS TELLS ME SHE WILL EASILY BET OBAMA!!! twitter: @MaxCUA

  • Well, maybe Donald, Bellez and Max are right. I will say this: the dripping putrid hatred that liberal blog meisters demonstrate for Sarah Palin on their message boards is almost palpable. I even know some who are otherwise very intelligent and well-balanced when it comes to science and engineering. In fact, I can’t believe that the pro-nuclear energy forums I “attend” are all so in love with Obama (who himself appointed an anti-nuke as NRC chairman, thereby stifling the nuclear rennaissance) and in hatred against Sarah Palin (who is very pro-nuclear). I just don’t get it. That’s the reason for my pessimism – the liberals control what’s said in the media.

    BTW, the actual people who work in nuclear energy – those without time to administer blog sites – are for Sarah Palin and against Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

  • Delusional.
    Obama has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination.

  • RR I would doubt my prediction if you agreed with it. You know as much about GOP primary politics as a pig does about penance.

  • “That’s the reason for my pessimism – the liberals control what’s said in the media.”

    No longer Paul, thanks to the new media. TAC is one small part of that new media and there are tens of thousands of organs like it around the nation. The days when Walter Cronkite could say “And that’s the way it is” and be believed are as dead as black and white TV.

  • Donald,

    I thus thank God for TAC, Real Catholic TV and similar outlets. I mean that sincerely.

  • Don, a wager? If Palin enters and wins the nomination, I’ll upload a pic of me with literal egg on my face. If Palin enters and fails to win the nomination, you do it.

  • In this age of “gotcha” journalism dominated by leftist media, the sharks will be out en masse picking up on every alleged Palin”gaffe.”

    Bachmann’s pretty much finished after her Elvis blooper (despite the triviality of it). When you become the constant butt of late night comics and political cartoonists and the jokes go viral, you’re done in the eyes of many.

    In an age when appearances rather than substance matter most, Chris Christie also wouldn’t last long given his corpulence. Imagine him, for example, counseling Americans to “tighten our belts” and the reaction.

    Palin has hard core support on the right, especially the Tea Party, but there are millions of haters out there who would still stick with Obama rather than see her win. She ran a small state, which as governor would be comparable to being mayor of Columbus, Ohio, and while charismatic she lacks intellectual depth and gravitas to be president. However, if she were on the ballot against Obama, I’d hold my nose and vote for her.

    Right now, I’d say it’s a two-man race between Romney (well financed and a good campaigner) and Perry (the best resume by far), and while neither is ideal in my view (although a Perry-Ryan ticket would be attractive), both are superior to the hapless McCain and likely have the best chance to beat Barack.

    Speaking of which, while the economy is in the crapper, don’t discount Obama’s ability to turn things around by fudging the numbers and pushing his theme that the Repubs have been the obstructionists to everything he’s trying to do. He’ll play the blame card for all its worth.

    Penultimately, there’s a Hollywood movie about the Seals raid on Osama in the works, planned to be released in October 2012 (note the timing) that will portray the CinC as a rock-solid patriot totally in command evoking images of Ike, Patton and MacArthur.

    And, as one poster mentioned, it’s early yet and there’s always the unexpected. Another 9/11-scenario, in which Americans would become united again, could be enough to get Obama over the hump.

  • Don, I wish I shared your optimism on this, but I just don’t. Lord knows, I love Sarah Palin – she was the ONLY reason I voted for McCain in ’08, and I’d happily vote for her again. But I know too many people to whom she should be an appealing candidate who can’t stand her. I just don’t see her winning enough support from waivering independents, and her presence at the top of a GOP ticket would inspire Obama’s currently uninspired base to turn out in droves. And that’s assuming she won the GOP nomination.

    With a viable conservative alternative like Perry in the GOP race, Palin’s winning the nomination becomes even more difficult than it already would have been. More likely, Perry and Palin and Bachmann and Paul will so splinter the conservative vote that Romney will win the nomination by default.

    That’s the scenario Obama would love to see play out. If that happens, what should be a fairly easy win for a Republican will turn into either a narrow Obama victory, or, worse-case scenario, a very narrow Romney victory that will result in Romney governing like the Rockefeller Republican that he truly is (I honestly see an Obama victory as preferable to that).

    At this point, I hope she doesn’t run.

  • Max reminds me that the e-mail dig was supposed to find dirt. Didn’t the MSM enlist the aid of volunteers to dig and analyze.

    Did they complete the review and find nothing or are they still digging?

  • Thomas Collins, RR.

    Three of the President’s more recent predecessors have had at modest recovery in public esteem at some point or another during the fifteen months or so antedated a stand for re-election, so it is not unusual at all. These recoveries occurred over a period of months in 1948, 1975-76, and 1992. The quarter-to-quarter changes in gross domestic product (expressed at annualized rates) were as follows:

    1947 q2: -0.3
    1947 q3: +6.2
    1947 q4: +6.5
    1948 q1: +7.5
    1948 q2: +2.2
    1948 q3: +0.6
    1949 q1: -5.5
    1949 q2: -1.4

    1975 q2: +3.1
    1975 q3: +6.9
    1975 q4: +5.3
    1976 q1: +9.4
    1976 q2: +3.0
    1976 q3: +2.0
    1976 q4: +2.9
    1977 q1: +4.7

    1991 q2: +2.7
    1991 q3: +1.7
    1991 q4: +1.6
    1992 q1: +4.5
    1992 q2: +4.3
    1992 q3: +4.2
    1992 q4: +4.3
    1992 q1: +0.7

    I do not think we will see economic performance this good in the coming year and a half, sad to say. You may have noticed that two of the three individuals in question were voted out of office anyway. If I were employed on the President’s campaign crew, I would not be particularly confident unless the GOP nominated Darth Vader.

  • Polarizing! Obama is the most divisive, class/race-hate generating cad in American History.

    Polarizing? Is “polarizing” the obazombie vocabulary word for this week?

  • Obama will win in a landslide.

    The following have been returned to office in landslides:

    Franklin Roosevelt (rapid economic growth, tarnished opposition)
    Dwight Eisenhower (broad and durable public esteem, modest economic growth)
    Lyndon Johnson (general if brittle public esteem, prosperity)
    Richard Nixon (mixed public opinion, prosperity with problems)
    Ronald Reagan (improving public esteem & liked by all but partisan Democrats, rapid economic growth)

    Which precedent is analogous?

  • RR:

    If Governor Palin wins, meds wouldn’t be sufficient. You will be in a padded room wearing a straitjacket.

    I will be singing “Non Nobis Domine . . .”

  • If she enters she has to be considered a front-runner for the nomination. It basically become a three-way bloodbath between Perry, Romney, and Palin. Bachmman’s candidacy would effectively be over. My fear is that Perry and Palin would split enough votes to swing the nomination to Romney.

    As for a general, the idea that Obama would win in a landslide is laughable. Yes, Palin’s negatives would make it a close election, and it might turn a few swing states towards Obama. That said, at a minimum Palin or any GOP candidate will win every state McCain won, and at this point Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina would almost certainly return to the red column regardless the GOP nominee.

    All that said, I’m more or less with Jay in my preferred outcome at this moment, but there’s a long way to go.

  • “Don, a wager? If Palin enters and wins the nomination, I’ll upload a pic of me with literal egg on my face. If Palin enters and fails to win the nomination, you do it.”

    Done RR, but with the caveat that the wager only applies if she gets in.

  • Destiny is an unmovable force. So we will see whose side She is on.

  • If Palin gets in she will win the nomination by acclimation. By the time Iowa, NH, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida are done it will be so clear what Republicans want the GOP will have no choice.

    If the Establishment Good Ole Boys continue to try and manipulate the outcome the Republican Party will be finished.

  • “With a viable conservative alternative like Perry in the GOP race, Palin’s winning the nomination becomes even more difficult than it already would have been. More likely, Perry and Palin and Bachmann and Paul will so splinter the conservative vote that Romney will win the nomination by default.”

    Romney is a pathetically weak candidate Jay, as demonstrated by Perry obtaining front runner status just by getting in. I don’t think there is a sizable vote for him outside of New Hampshire against a first rate opponent. Bachmann gets out after Palin gets in. She will have no choice as her money and support collapses. Her appeal has basically been as an imitation Palin. Santorum will also get out, after throwing his support to Palin, in hopes of getting a cabinet position, which he will. Paul’s vote doesn’t come mainly from Republican conservatives, but rather from disaffected left wing Democrats and Libertarians. He and Palin will not be fighting for the same votes in the primaries. Her main opposition will be Rick Perry, who may well end up as her Veep.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy): G-Veg, the MSM finished digging through all the Palin emails released by the state of Alaska — and found nothing/zip/zilch/nada.

  • Rove and the rest of the GOP establishment will play divide and conquer like nobody’s business. They will play Perry and Palin (and Bachmann – she still has a significant following) off of one another, planting stories here and there to make it look like they’re backbiting one another. When all is said and done, they WANT Romney and they will have Romney, unless there is a single viable alternative to Romney. As much as I love Sarah, I’m not sure she represents the viable alternative.

    By the way, what will be the “theme” of her campaign? Perry has shown us what his theme will be and has shown some discipline in sticking to it, even in the face of all the sharp knives that have been out since his announcement. He is campaigning on jobs and the economy and pointing to his own 10-year record as governor of the 2nd-largest state as an alternative to what Obama has to offer. If the economy and jobs is the focus of the next election, the Republican nominee will win. What will Sarah’s theme be? What record will she run on to point to as an alternative to Obama. At this point, she has less executive experience than he has, which was not the case in’08, when she had more experience than he. If Sarah’s campaign becomes about her (and the Dem and the media will pull out all the stops to make it about her), she will lose. We already had one election in ’08 that was all about the candidate and the precedents that electing him would set – he won and the current state of affairs is the consequence of that. Sarah will need a compelling reason to vote for her over Obama. Perry offers that. Heck, even Romney (as pathetic as he is) offers that. Even Ron Paul, believe it or not, offers that.

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure Sarah does. Next year’s election has to be about the economy and jobs and restoring America’s confidence and good name. What does Sarah point to as being her qualifications to do this?

  • “Sarah will need a compelling reason to vote for her over Obama.”

    Actually I think any GOP candidate will be have a compelling reason to vote for them: they aren’t Obama. President’s who preside over lousy economies during election years lose. That is a simple fact of American political life.

    She has spoken out against virtually every economic and fiscal mistep of this administration. Go to the link below to read her facebook page which chronicles her views quite well.

    http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=wall#!/sarahpalin?sk=notes

    She has been building her platform ever since 2008. She will win due to the bad economy and a promise to reverse the course that Obama has set for us.

    In regard to Perry he is a good enough conventional politician with a tendency to be a bit too Texan for the rest of the nation. (Does he really think that the 1845 treaty of annexation gives Texas a right to secede?) I think he will give Palin a good race and keep up excitement and interest in the Republican primaries which will be all to the good for the general election. If Palin does not get in, Perry will be the nominee, absent some major scandal, but I think that Palin will get in.

  • JA Has it 100%.

    The campaign will be about “compare and contrast” four more years robbing Peter to pay Paul to prosperity for all: economic growth and job creation.

    The MSM can’t broadcast Obama’s utter failure so it will character assassinate Governor Palin or Governor Perry, or whomever.

  • To be honest, I’m hoping that Palin stays out.

    She’s an attractive political personality, and I had a lot of hopes for her when got the VP nomination last year, but it seems to me she showed a lot of weakness in quitting the governorship without finishing her first term, and she did honestly fall down badly in unscripted interviews.

    I hate saying anything against her, since the Left (and the elitist Right) managed to show some of the most despicable behavior in our political arena in the last 30 years towards here — behavior which shows how truly loathsome a lot of them really are.

    But overall I’m just not sure she’d be that good a president. (Better than Obama, but then would would be some yard gnomes.) And I’m concerned she wouldn’t do well in the election.

    That said, the GOP field is staggeringly weak. I’m slightly leaning towards Perry but no one has my enthusiasm.

  • Being a Texan myself, I can’t comprehend what “too Texan” might mean. Is that like having “too much money”? Or “too much love”? Or “car too fast”?

    Or “economy too good”? “Too much job creation”?

    In ’08, the “rest of the country” chose for President an infantile amateur with no governing experience who likes to make everything all about himself. At this point, even one of them there Texans might look good to the “rest of the country”.

    (And, by the way, MOST Texans, including expat Texans like myself, adopt the interpretation of the 1845 treaty of annexation that Gov. Perry put forward. In fact, I adopt the position that the treaty of annexation is completely irrelevant to the question of secession, and that Texas could just tell the “rest of the country” to go to hell and do whatever it wants.)

    ;-)

  • Ditto Darwin. I will add however, that I actually feel some despair about the situation in our country and the world as a whole. The only hope I have for any type turn toward sustainability is for the Republican Party to put forward a candidate with a solid vision, strong convictions that are good. I just don’t see it happening though. I would likely vote for just about anybody the Pubs put it up because the odds of that person being worse than Obama or any other Dem are slim, but holding your nose while you pull the lever does not bring relief to the soul. It’s so cliche to say it, but what need a Reagan type of candidate. Not a clone, not someone who pays lip service to him, not someone who tries to be like him, but just a sharp, decent human being who is unafraid to work for the right thing in spite of all the opposing forces.

  • the GOP field is staggeringly weak

    Most of them would be passable in a different set of circumstances (say, 1996). The trouble is the culture in the Republican Party. They are no longer able to talk turkey in any setting.

  • ” I can’t comprehend what “too Texan” might mean.”

    I believe there was a state advertising slogan for Texas a few decades back Jay that said, “Texas, it is a whole other country!” Sometimes Texas politicians translate well on the national stage and sometimes they do not. John B. Connelley wasted quite a bit of money in 80 to go noplace. I doubt if LBJ would have ever gotten to the White House, but for his ability to steal the 60 election for Kennedy in Texas, and an assassin’s bullet. Bush 41 was elected President in 88, but I doubt if he ever made a convincing Texan. His son was pure Texan, and he just barely made it to the White House in 00 and it was a lot closer than it should have been in 04. I personally think that Texas has been a success and that other states should emulate it in many ways, but that there is potential hurdle for a Texan politician going national is undeniable.

    The treaty of annexation does not say anything about secession, but it does allow Texas to split into four other states, something which might come in handy in the future if the citizens of Texas found that desirable.

  • “but it seems to me she showed a lot of weakness in quitting the governorship without finishing her first term, and she did honestly fall down badly in unscripted interviews.”

    I believe that she has been planning this run since 2008 and I think quitting the post was a necessary part of her plan. She has used it to build up a national movement and to amass favors owed from Republican politicians across the nation. In regard to unscriped interviews, I think that was true in 2008, but it is no longer true this year.

  • I and almost every other Texan knows what the treaty says. The fact that the notoriously independece-minded Texans didn’t feel the need to explicitly reserve the “right” to secede tells me that it wasn’t even questionable. Of course they could do with regard to the U.S. what they had just done with regard to Mexico.

    Apart from Sam Houston, who was a late interloper into the Texas Revolution acting as Andrew Jackson’s stalking horse with the interests of the U.S., as opposed to those of Texas, closest to his heart, I doubt most Texans believed entering into the Union foreclosed future options. And it wasn’t 15 years later that they decided to exercise those options.

    As for Texas being a “whole other country”, is it REALLY that different that frickin’ Alaska?

  • And let’s not forget that the Palins have a secession advocacy problem of their own in their past.

  • “And it wasn’t 15 years later that they decided to exercise those options.”

    And what a rousing success that was Jay! :) A lot of misery could have been avoided if Texans had listened to the man who led them to victory at San Jacinto.

    Alaska has never had a politician in the White House. Palin will be sui generis on that point, as well as many others.

  • Wow. For people opposed to the hate shown by the media toward your devout Sarah, there certainly is a lot of hateful speech here toward anyone who doesn’t worship at her stilettos.

    Fact: she left Wasilla in debt by building a sports arena on land the city did not own.
    Fact: her mansion was built by the same contractors as the arena, with many of the same materials, supposedly by Todd’s ‘buddies.” Mayor Sarah suspended the need for building permits, so no one can find out facts about who, what, or how much.
    Fact: Sarah is afraid to be interviewed anywhere but Fox, which feeds her softball questions in advance so she can have her answers in front of her (you can often see the prompter reflected in her glasses.)
    Fact: Sarah Palin has nary a good word to say, ever, about the other side. President Obama has done all he can to work with the GOP, to the extent of hurting his initiatives and making himself look bad.
    Fact: the people here who support her will dismiss everything I have written, because you have bought her picked upon genius meme. So be it. But Sarah has so many skeletons in her personal and financial closets that I don’t think she wants scrutinized. For example, why is a PAC paying for ‘family vacations’ in a vehicle that costs millions to drive, and then they pay for her hotel rooms as well? Her PAC, which was set up to help candidates of her choice, has spent a teeny amount doing that, and much more on speechwriters (surprise, she never writes what she says, or writes) and personal things for multimillionaure Sarah.
    Keep thinking she is your savior: she is not.

  • “And let’s not forget that the Palins have a secession advocacy problem of their own in their past.”

    If you can ever find anything where Sarah Palin ever said that Alaska had a right to secede Jay, you would have a comparison to what Perry said.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891829,00.html

  • I just mention it as evidence of what Texans might have been thinking in 1845. Clearly, slavery played a role (although a much more minor role than left-wing historians would have us believe) in the Texas Revolution. And it was one of the sticking points blocking an earlier agreement on annexation with the U.S. And it was clearly the reason behind secession 15 years later.

    There is no way Texas agreed to statehood thinking that they wouldn’t have a future option to secede over the issue of slavery. As ashamed of Texas’ slavery past as I am, that is just the plain intent of the parties based on the facts.

  • “that is just the plain intent of the parties based on the facts.”

    If such a provision had been inserted Jay it would never have made it through Congress. Northern Democrats and Whigs were already leery about Texas coming into the Union as a slave state, and a proviso allowing secession at the whim of Texas would have driven them over the edge. In any case, Texas had been begging for admission since 1836. This was not the case of the US wooing a reluctant Texas but quite the reverse.

  • As for the hero of San Jacinto, you will find that I am a big fan of Sam Houston. “The Raven” is one of my favorite books of all time, albeit fairly poor in the way of objective biography. More recent biographies and histories of the Texas Revolution offer a much more balanced assessment of Sam’s role in the Runaway Scrape and eventual victory at San Jacinto. It appears that Houston’s intent had been to retreat all the way across the Sabine and enlist the aid of U.S. troops to defeat the Mexican army. Much of the credit for the victory goes to Houston’s subordinates who forced Houston’s hand on meeting Santa Ana at Buffalo Bayou.

  • Again, Texas would never have entered the Union believing itself barred from acting in what it believed were its interests with respect to slavery. And all I’m saying is that what happened just 15 years later is evidence of that.

  • I hope she runs. She mentioned the blessings of liberty. I connect with that, so do others. To early to predict anything about anyone. I want Obama defeated and sent home.

  • I tend to agree Jay with those authorities who say that at the Council of War held by Houston prior to the battle of San Jacinto that a majority of the participants were in favor of going on the defensive and waiting for Santa Anna to attack, and that it was Houston who pressed for an immediate assault. Certainly several of Houston’s officers had various hare-brained schemes during that campaign including abandoning Texas to Santa Anna and marching on Mexico City. Houston who was a flamboyant personality himself, was, by comparison, restrained and sober in his command of the Texan army. I have always treasured this quote by Houston about those days:

    “All new states are invested, more or less, by a class of noisy, second-rate men who are always in favor of rash and extreme measures, But Texas was absolutely overrun by such men.”

  • The fact that she garners this much time and attention on a Sunday morning says something significant.

  • Indeed it does G-Veg. Love her or hate her the woman is a political superstar. Most politicians are ribbon clerks by comparison.

  • It seems as though Sally is a wee bit jealous. Isn’t there a Commandment about that?

    I would happily vote for Sarah just to put people like Sally into fits of apolexy.

    “…there certainly is a lot of hateful speech here toward anyone who doesn’t worship at her stilettos.”

    Hah! I don’t worship at her stilettos, but I certainly hope (and pray) that she takes them off long enough to place their business ends straight into the filthy dirty heart of the godless party of death know as “Democrat” (figuratively speaking, of course). Then I would ask – nay, beg! – Todd for permission to kiss them. Heck, I might do that anyways!

    I just love people like Sally and their vile invective. That alone shows me that perhaps Donald is right. Sarah can win and those who consider themselves better than her are perfectly green with envy.

    PS, does that make me racist because I cited green pigmentation in skin color? Ha!

  • It was only overrun by such men after the later wave of immigrants came in – say, roughly around 1832 or after. Houston, Bowie, Travis were among them. The earlier Anglo settlers like Austin were much more measured and conservative than the late arrivals.

    The definitive military history of the Texas Revolution, in my view, is “Texian Iliad” by Stephen L. Hardin. He’s been called a “revisionist” by many partisan Texans (is there any other kind?) because he offers a balanced portrayal of the events that seeks neither to glorify nor to denigrate. (NOTE: this is the book that almost EVERY Texas Revolution re-enactment group reccomends as definitive, so you can take their word for it, or you can defer to Houston apologists who absolutely HATE this book.) Hardin’s study of Houston portrays a man decidedly less “decisive” than the Houston you describe as one who “pressed for an immediate assault”. Apparently NOT how the whole thing went down. Not only San Jacinto, but Houston’s role in the entire Revolution is reassessed throughout. Suffice it to say, Houston made questionable decisions throughout the war, including dismissing Travis’ dispatches from the Alamo : “Houston ‘swore that he believed it to be a damn lie, & that all those reports from Travis and Fannin were lies, for there were no Mexican forces there and that he believed that it was only electioneering schemes on [the part of] Travis & Fannin to sustain their own popularity.’ ”

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/houstonhardin.html

    Rather than regurgitate here what Hardin has written, I will instead encourage you to read the book. As a lover of military history, you won’t be sorry.

    At any rate, I didn’t mean to take this Palin thread so far afield. That’s all I’ll say about Texas … at least in this thread.

  • To win by 300, Obama needs to be in real trouble. Outside of conservative circles, Palin’s name is a punchline. We can debate whether that ought to be the case or not, but that doesn’t change the reality that Palin has a lot of baggage that she would have to overcome not only to secure the Republican nomination the presidency in general, not to mention have such a rousing defeat. Palin would make it easy for Obama to do what Bush did in ’04 and turn the tables to attack the stereotype of the opponent rather than have the public focus on whether the president deserves reelection.

  • Are you better off today than you were in 2008? I’m not. Since 2008 my husband has had a pay freeze and I’ve had a pay reduction. We are immensely thankful that we are still employed! Gas prices have doubled, food prices have soared, my retirement is in the tank, my home has lost value, our country is in another war, we’ve lost international standing, we’ve experienced more terrorist attempts yet it’s the grannies in the airport line getting stripped searched, Michelle Obama has been on vacation for over 42 days this year alone on our dime, and I can’t even bring myself to speak of what the Golfer-in-Chief has done to our military’s morale. And the radical pro-abortionist calls himself a Christian, phfttssts!

    I have taken a vow not to put down any Republican candidate, let the best man or woman win. Anyone out there who votes for Obama needs their heads examined!

  • Hmmmm….after a little research one wonders if our Sally might be none other than Sally Quinn, that Washington Post reporter who had a feud with the Clintons and who (being non-Catholic) partook of Holy Communion at Catholic Church anyways while knowing better (liberals always know better).

    I’ll wager there are skeletons in Ms. Quinn’s closet as well, and in this day and age of the internet, time and research can bring those to light. Fortunately, however, I actually work for a living instead of trying to drag Sarah Palin’s name into the dirt with writing nonsense that I know nothing about.

  • The Tea Party and hardcore social conservatives may be enough to make Palin a primary contender, but I really don’t see her going over the top even for the nomination; and if she does win the nomination I think she will lose by about 3-5 percentage points of popular vote (don’t ask me to translate that into electoral votes).

    The reason: she needs independents to win the general election, just as Obama needed more than just hardcore liberals to win. Obama has since lost appeal to independents, but in an Obama-Palin race they might be persuaded to vote for him again, albeit reluctantly, on the grounds that the devil they know beats the one they don’t.

    When even I — who vote Republican 99 percent of the time, have ALWAYS been pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment, and personally admire Palin and DO NOT think she is the complete idiot the MSM makes her out to be — nevertheless have severe doubts about whether I want her to be POTUS, you can bet a lot of other Republicans, not to mention independents, feel the same way.

    I think she will play the same role in the GOP primaries this time around that Hillary Clinton did in ’08 — it may be neck and neck between her and Perry until fairly late in the primary season. It certainly won’t be over on Super Tuesday.

  • Obama is in desperate shape, especially under the new electoral map. Palin takes Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and New Hampshire as givens for a total of 184. I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, and that gets her to 276 and the election. Then I am pretty confident she will win Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin for another 32. You can probably add into that mix Colorada at 9 and Pennsylvania at 20, both of where Obama’s numbers are plummeting.

  • a little research one wonders if our Sally might be none other than Sally Quinn,

    I doubt Sally Quinn bothers with blog commentary (much left chock-a-bloc with internet memes), would fancy a bus or an RV has operating costs in the ‘millions’, or would consider a 3,400 sq foot home built nine years ago to be a ‘mansion’.

  • “I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida”

    I CAN see Obama winning (or more precisely, Palin losing) Florida and maybe Ohio. I also would NOT count on Palin winning either Michigan or Wisconsin, because disillusionment with the GOP not having solved all their economic problems in 2 years may start to settle in there, and you can bet unions will be going all-out to defeat her. Also, I wouldn’t put Missouri in a “sure Palin win” column yet either; if I remember correctly, it took more than a week to determine, last time around, whether the Show Me State went for Obama or McCain (it finally ended up in the McCain column but not by much).

    All that said, if you remove all the states I consider doubtful from the R column, that subtracts 83 electoral votes from Palin (10 each for MO and WI, 16 for MI, 18 for OH and 29 for FL) and leaves her with only 225, if my math is correct. If she holds on to Florida, that gives her 254 electoral votes; she would need 16 more to win, which could be attained with either Ohio or Michigan by itself.

  • I don’t think Sarah Palin will run for President for 2012. Rick Perry has jumped in and Perry has a much longer – and quite successful – political record. It has some flaws, but I don’t care. Perry will hand Obama’s rear end to him.

  • Palin would make it easy for Obama to do what Bush did in ’04 and turn the tables to attack the stereotype of the opponent rather than have the public focus on whether the president deserves reelection.

    The President actually runs against a flesh-and-blood candidate, not some spectre (which is Elaine Krewer’s point). Mr. Kerry was as presentable as the Democratic Party could manage (his competitors being John Edwards, Dr. Dean, and Gen. Clark – each of whom had vulnerabilities). Mr. Bush had a passably durable floor of 50% of the public who approved of his performance (whether he deserved that or not).

  • I think Florida and Ohio are safe for the GOP next year Elaine. If Palin wants a little insurance for Florida, and to dent Obama’s Hispanic vote, Marco Rubio would be an excellent choice for Veep.

    The fact that Missouri went Republican in 2008 is a guarantee that it is going Republican in 2012, since 2008 was the worst Republican year since the Watergate wipeout of 1974.

  • Obumbler will not win Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in 2012again. Obumbler could lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin in 2012. If obumbler won New Hampshire last time, I don’t remember if he did, he will lose there as well. Maybe in Maine, too?

    The point is, a conservative has to win the GOP nomination (Perry or Bachmann, not Romney) for this to happen. The 2012 election will be all about the economy – jobs, inflation, the despised health care law and energy. Obumbler cannot win these issuses against Rick Perry.

  • Ohio would NOT be safe for Palin. As I mentioned earlier, I know too many people who SHOULD be huge Palin fans who can’t stand her. They’ve bought into the caricature the media has painted of her.

  • I disagree Jay. With this economy only masochists and yellow dog Democrats, no doubt a fair amount of overlap in those categories, will be voting for Obama next year.

  • I doubt if LBJ would have ever gotten to the White House, but for his ability to steal the 60 election for Kennedy in Texas,

    For the record, he would have had to arrange for his minions to steal 46,000 votes, not the 202 votes they stuffed into one ballot box in one precinct in Jim Wells County in 1948. I don’t think so.

  • Open fraud was blatant in the Presidential contest in 1960 in Texas Art. Typical examples include a precinct in Angelina county where 86 people voted and 147 Kennedy votes were tallied; in Fannin County the 4895 registered voters managed the considerable feat of casting 6183 votes, 75% for Kennedy. The Texas Board of Elections, completely controlled by Democrats, refused to order a state wide recount even though the fraud was open and obvious.

  • It’s not like there was any voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 or anything.

    ;-)

  • I doubt if anyone sentient doubts the stealing of the Illinois votes Jay! :) Texas was always key however, since Illinois was not enough to change the results. Earl Mazo of the New York Herald Tribune began an excellent series on the fraud in Illinois and Texas. He wrote four of a planned 12 part series. His editors, at the request of Nixon, pulled him off the story. Nixon was afraid that a battle over the fraud would lead to endless turmoil and was not in the interest of the nation. I have almost no use for Nixon, but his attitude after the 1960 election was stolen from him was statesmanlike.

  • Coincidentally, Nixon came up at work in conversation this week. One of our Ivy League attorneys stated if it were not for his institution of federal guaranties for student loans, she could not have earned her Ivy laurels.

    There was a war going on in Vietnam and in America. Nixon similarly quietly resigned during Watergate when many patriotic Americans (outside the Viet-Congress and the comintern-funded VC sympathizer campuses/weathermen/media) would have backed him. That war was won in the US.

  • I have been noodling around in some databases. There appears to be little scholarly literature on the subject and what there is is on the situation in Illinois.

    It’s not like there was any voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 or anything.

    Again, Lyndon Johnson’s crew would have had to scale up their 1948 performance by a factor of 23 and outdo Mayor Daley in Illinois by a factor of 5. I do not think so.

  • Richard Nixon’s resignation was as quiet as a steam calliope, three-fourths of the public was content to see him go, and he was told by Barry Goldwater that there were all of twelve Senators who would vote for acquittal should the full House pass any of the three impeachment resolutions it had to consider. If I am not mistaken, federally guaranteed student loans (like Pell Grants) were an initiative of the Johnson Administration, enacted in 1965.

  • It might have been “statesmanlike”, but it certainly was NOT in the best interest of the country to allow to go uninvestigated voter fraud on such a scale as to swing a presidential election.

  • I disagree Jay. Consider the amount of bitterness injected into our politics by disputes over the 2000 election. I think Nixon made the right call for the country.

  • “Again, Lyndon Johnson’s crew would have had to scale up their 1948 performance by a factor of 23 and outdo Mayor Daley in Illinois by a factor of 5. I do not think so.”

    Why not? The Democrats were in control of the entire state and LBJ controlled the Texas Democrat party. The fraud was part and parcel of the way LBJ did business throughout his career. Interestingly enough, once LBJ was out of the state and in the White House, the Texas Republicans were able to win their first state wide race since Reconstruction when John Tower won the special election for Johnson’s senate seat.

  • The alternative to that bitterness was Algore stealing an election via “recount” fraud. Again, it does the country no favors to allow rampant cheating to swing the outcome of elections.

  • I think I need to redo my math based on Don’s projections….

    “Palin takes Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and New Hampshire as givens for a total of 184.”

    Mostly true, although I still have my doubts about Missouri (10 electoral votes) as noted above. I’m also not so sure about West Virginia (5 electoral votes) as that state is traditionally very Democratic. 184 – 15 = 159.

    “I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, and that gets her to 276 and the election.”

    Remove Ohio and Florida, which I consider doubtful, and we are left with 6 (IA) + 11 (IN) + 13 (VA) + 15 (NC) = 45 electoral votes + 159 from the “sure thing” states = 204.

    “Then I am pretty confident she will win Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin for another 32.”

    I don’t think ANY of those states are sure things — remember, Nevadans chose Harry Reid, who was thought to be a dead duck, over Sharon Angle, who was one of the Tea Party darlings; and if Nevadans thought she was scary, what will they think of Palin? It will be close in all those states but Obama could still pull it off here.

    “You can probably add into that mix Colorado at 9 and Pennsylvania at 20, both of where Obama’s numbers are plummeting.”

    If we do, that brings Palin’s grand total to 233, well short of what she needs to win.

  • “The alternative to that bitterness was Algore stealing an election via “recount” fraud.”

    Gore was in the Nixon role Jay. Instead of doing the statesman like thing and conceding that the election went against him in Florida, he was willing to raise up a whirlwind of ill will until the Supreme Court shut him down.

    Such statesmanship was also shown by Democrat Samuel J. Tilden after the 1876 Presidential election was stolen from him.

  • West Virginia went against Obama in 2008 Elaine. There is no way that will change in 2012. My comment about Missouri stands. I do not think it will even be close there. I don’t think there is anything doubtful about Florida and Ohio being in the GOP slot. In Pennsylavania in a recent poll Obama was shown in a virtual tie with Santorum, which is just incredible for anyone who pays attention to Pennsylvania politics. Wisconsin I think is headed in a red direction. Michigan has probably suffered more than any other state in the recession. While Nevada was re-electing Reid, his kid was getting clobbered in the gubernatorial election. Nevada will be the closest, but I think Palin would win by at least three points.

  • Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college on the basis of fewer than 600 votes in Florida. He owed it to himself and those who voted for him (the majority of those who voted) to seek a recount under those circumstances. I won’t begrudge him that, and it was not “unstatemanlike” for him to seek a recount to determine whether he actually lost by fewer than 600 votes. What was unstatesmanlike was the manner in which he sought to conduct the recount.

    Had the 1960 election ended like the 2000 election did, Nixon would have owed it to the country to seek a recount. If Sarah Palin were to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote on the basis of fewer than 600 votes in Ohio or Florida, I feel certain you’d want a recount to determine whether she actually lost in that state.

  • Florida had a recount Jay. What the Gore campaign wanted was the Florida Supreme Court to alter Florida state election law in order for them to have the type of recount they wanted which was contrary to Florida law as it existed at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court, controlled by the Dems, obliged the Gore campaign and altered the law, which is why the US Supreme Court stepped in twice. I have no problem with Gore having the recount required by Florida law, which he had. The unstatesmanlike behavior arose from his campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to alter the rules after the fact. The country is still paying the price for Gore allowing ambition to overrule patriotism.

  • Okay Don, now that I think about it, I’ll put W. Va. and Missouri back in the GOP column, which gives Palin 248 electoral votes. She needs 22 more to win. Those votes could come from Florida alone; PA in combination with ANY other state; or a 2 out of 3 sweep of WI, OH and MI.

    I worry, however, that in states like MI and OH and even PA that have suffered badly from the recession, independent voters might be susceptible to the argument that the GOP is dominated by wealthy fat cats like those eeevil Koch brothers who care about nothing but increasing corporate profits, busting unions and making everyone work for minimum wage (I’m not saying that is in any way true, just pointing out how the Democrats are likely to paint the situation).

    For a helpful tool in piecing together a 2012 electoral map, visit this site:

    http://www.270towin.com/

  • “I have no problem with Gore having the recount required by Florida law, which he had. The unstatesmanlike behavior arose from his campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to alter the rules after the fact.”

    Then we’re in perfect agreement on that.

  • Al Gore won nothing in 2000. There is no “popular vote”. Had that election been contested, state by state, Gore would have ended up having more votes disqualified. Democrats get 100% of the dead vote and almost 100% of the illegal alien vote. How many voters voted in both New York State and Florida (thanks to Motor Voter, it is nearly impossible to remove a person from the rolls).

    I don’t think independents can bring themselves to vote for Obumbler in 2012 when so many of them resoundingly voted against Obumbler in 2010.

    Ohio will not go for Obumbler in 2012. Northeast Ohio does not like John Kasich, but Kasich has been turning Ohio around and Northeast Ohio does not carry the state. Florida will not vote for Obumbler. Virginia will not vote for Obumbler. North Carolina will not vote for Obumbler. Indiana will not vote for Obumbler. I don’t think Iowa will vote for Obumbler.

    Pennsylvania has weathered the recession better than most states, as the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania has not hit 10% statewide. The thing here is, despite some unpopularity for Governor Corbett, Corbett signed a balanced budget, with no tax increases, ahead of schedule. Eddie $pendell wanted a tax increase each and every year. There is Democrat fatigue in Pennsylvania and I don’t see how a tired, inept Obumbler can carry Pennsylvania again. They key is the Philly suburbs, which have trended Democrat for the better part in presidential elections since 1992, but went GOP in a big way in the 2010 elections.

    Let’s face it. The economy will not improve in the remainder of 2011 or in 2012. The health care law has frightened business from hiring and high fuel prices, coupled with inflation in food prices, will not scare independents into voting for Obumbler. George Soros’ money won’t save him. The silly college age youth who voted for Obama in 2008 are largely unemployed or underemployed and Obumbler can not snooker the college youth in 2012 like he did in 2008.

  • If she’s nominated, I can’t see how she wins, unless the economy tanks even more. A distinct possibility, but the President still retains a decided popularity edge over Palin. People still like him, if not the job he’s doing.

    Palin, on other hand, is radioactive with independents. The media’s hatchet job, along with a couple of unforced errors, have ensured that. That unpopularity will not decay in time for the 2012 election. I like her personally (my uncle worked with her father in law up in Alaska) and am infuriated by the hatchet job, but she’s not electable *now*. Run for Begich’s seat, build up her resume’ some and she still has a future.

    In short, if we’re staring down the barrel of Carter-level stagflation, she can win. But then again, so can the rest of the current field, including candidates with far less baggage.

  • More grist for the mill: Rasmussen has her being crushed in a head-to-head matchup with the President. Today.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_50_palin_33

    At 33%, she’s not even holding on to the Republican base, gents. Even in this dead-parrot economy.

  • And Reagan in 1979 Dale was being crushed 57-35 in Gallup head to head match ups against Carter. Campaigns and the state of the economy in the election year do wonders for determining the actual outcome in November. Polls at this point are fun for political junkies like me, but are of little utility except perhaps for one element noted by Rasmussen. Obama is losing to a generic Republican. That is usually predictive of an incumbent in deep trouble.

  • Don, don’t whistle too loudly past the graveyard. : )

  • I don’t watch or follow any sports Joe. Politics fills that function for me. I certainly support Sarah Palin, but my analysis in this thread is simply what I think the political outcome would be in a matchup between Palin and Obama. If you wish to argue otherwise based on facts, feel free.

  • Don, your Palin “landslide” presumes she will be the nominee, which is not only premature but unlikely. Although there’s much discontent in the land that an Obama opponent could tap into, it is a FACT that the Democrats are more united than the GOP where RINOs and the Tea Party barely co-exist much less share political views.

    Secondly, wasn’t it the “Architect” himself, Karl Rove, whose party clout is undeniable, who cut Sarah off at the knees repeatedly.

    Lastly, Wisconsin, although purple, is still a toss-up state and could go blue in light of the growing anti-Walker sentiment and possibility of recall and the mountains of cash the unions are able to use as leverage.

  • That Palin will be the nominee is quite likely Joe as Iowa and New Hampshire will demonstrate quite well. Her main competition will be Rick Perry who is now receiving the same micro-exam that Palin has been under since 2008. Palin has a hard core of supporters throughout the nation that the other candidates currently lack. She has been quietly building up enthusiastic organizations for her in every state of the Union. She can outraise in campaign funds any of her opponents. The enthusiasm gap between her supporters and the supporters of any of the other candidates is vast.

    Karl Rove? Would that be the Karl Rove who almost lost two elections that any Republican candidate should have won going away in 2000 and 2004? I enjoy his appearances on talk shows, but I have little doubt that he will have zero influence on who the nominee will be.

    Wisconsin is not necessary for Palin to win the White House, but I think we shall have it in any case. What Walker is doing is already bearing positive fruit for the Wisconsin economy, and the economy is going to be the overriding issue next year.

  • Well, Don, I’d like to share your enthusiasm but don’t think Palin can pull it off. We’ll see. Meanwhile Rove’s still a force and his potshots don’t help.

  • I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.

  • “I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.”

    Is that the best you can do? “Wing-nut”? As can be seen above, I’m a strong skeptic of Palin as a candidate, but can’t you at least offer something substantive? Anything?

  • “I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.”

    Yeah and Reagan was only “a has been grade b actor”. I have been around long enough to recall all the epithets aimed at conservative standard bearers in presidential contests. You will have to dodge more artfully than that.

  • The reason I thought this was a joke was that Sarah Palin is the same as Obama except from the other political extreme. We don’t need political extremeism anymore. We need someone who has more real world experience than her. We need a republican candidate who can pull both parties together and start making something good happen in this country. I think electing Sara Palin would be self destructive to this country by electing someone who is just as polarizing as Mr. Obama.

  • The reason I thought this was a joke was that Sarah Palin is the same as Obama except from the other political extreme.

    To anyone remotely familiar with either, this statement must sound unreal.

    If you wish to argue otherwise based on facts, feel free.

    One cannot argue on the basis of fact. One can speculate. You’ve got your known unknowns (the course of the economy over the next 15 months and the identity of the Republican candidate) and then you’ve got your unknown unknowns. Precedents are modest in number and efforts at statistical modeling in the past have proven unreliable (recall the corps of quantitatively oriented political scientists whose model in 2000 predicted that Albert Gore would be voted into office with 60% of the vote, a historically unprecedented margin). Would not wager much.

    More grist for the mill: Rasmussen has her being crushed in a head-to-head matchup with the President. Today.

    Having a not-ready-for-prime time candidate would (one suspect) cost you. You know, though, there are only four recent precedents (Wendell Willkie, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, and Ronald Reagan). The relevant question is how much it costs you and what your antecedent baseline is. Who can say?

  • I agree in essence with Art. There are simply too many variables to argue “facts.” All this conjecture is nothing more than opinion, or a semi-educated guess, on what can/will happen. Isn’t voting, when you come down to it, little more than a tabulation of collective opinion?

  • “One cannot argue on the basis of fact.”

    Fact: The economy is bad and getting worse.

    Fact: Obama doesn’t have a clue what to do about it.

    Fact: The overwhelming issue in the vast majority of Presidential elections is the economy.

    Conclusion From the above Facts: Obama is in the worst place of any President seeking re-election since Herbert Hoover.

    Further facts in regard to Palin to follow after I have had an opportunity to unwind from an order of protection hearing that didn’t end until 6: 30 this evening.

  • “Yeah and Reagan was only “a has been grade b actor”

    More precisely, a “has been Grade B actor” who had been Governor of California for 8 years. He was elected to two terms and COMPLETED both. So he was considerably more ready for prime time than Palin.

  • Not according to his critics at the time Elaine. Reagan got no credit whatsoever for his time as governor of California, and his ideas were mocked as out of date if not positively senile. The contempt and vitriol poured on Reagan in 76 and 80, more than a little bit from fellow Republicans, cannot be understated. The opposition was so strong to Reagan that it helped to convince Republican congressman John Anderson to run third party. He walked away with 6.6% of the vote on election day, not an uimpressive showing by a third party candidate. A gallup poll in late October of 1980 showed Reagan trailing Carter by six points. Reagan tends to be viewed through rose colored classes these days, but his road to the White House was bumpy and hard fought, and almost all elite opinion, and probably most Americans until shortly before the election, thought that he should never get there.

  • Sarah Palin cannot possibly be as successful as innumerable Ivy League geniuses that have pretty well wrecked the greatest nation in the History of Man.

  • More precisely, a “has been Grade B actor” who had been Governor of California for 8 years. He was elected to two terms and COMPLETED both. So he was considerably more ready for prime time than Palin.

    Gov. Palin was a mayor and a state bureau chief for ten years prior to her turn as governor. Her’s has been a more normal political progression. (Reagan did have some preparation by superintending the Screen Actors’ Guild). Lou Cannon and others have contended Mr. Reagan hardly knew whether he was coming or going during his initial years as Governor of California. I do not think anyone has contended Gov. Palin was in a similar predicament. She was quite forthright about practical circumstances which compelled her to resign as Governor of Alaska. Unless you can face $500,000 and ever upward of legal bills, I would suggest you be less catty about it.

  • Objection, Don, asked and answered.

  • I remember a couple of years ago many conservatives were saying that we can never again let the left and their media pick the Republican candidate. Did we forget what we said? Don’t let the media pick who we should not vote for either.

    Palin is the most vetted politician in history, and all of her ‘negatives’ are based on lies.

    Sticking her neck out confronting Obama, 2 books,
    24,000 emails, and an independently made movie,
    all show that Sarah Palin is a hard working, capable, incorruptible, servant of the people.

    Palin has the truth on her side. The more that comes to light, the better for her.
    This is exactly the opposite for most of her opponents and especially Obama.
    She has earned my vote already.

  • “Objection, Don, asked and answered”.

    My response to a successful objection along those lines Joe is to alter my question until I get the answer I want, or until I have so confused the court and opposing counsel that the answer I did not want harms me very little. :) Oh and going back to the question later after additional questions and answers have complicated/confused the issue is another useful technique. Ah Socrates, the legal profession today would make you weep, but I could have spared you the hemlock if I had represented you! (Although after seeing a modern trial he might have been bellowing for hemlock, the more potent the better!)

  • We need a republican candidate who can pull both parties together and start making something good happen in this country.

    I think this is impossible. Other than a few outliers, the Democrats would never participate in it. It’s not in their best interest to help Republicans do the right thing and it’s not in their best interest to have society humming along nicely without their heavy hand. At best you can hope for a sound candidate who can solidify most if not all of the party behind him and garner enough broad public support to squeeze vulnerable Democrats to cross party lines.

  • Don, I’ve been a defendant twice in my life, both for traffic tickets, which I pleaded not guilty to. I represented myself, took photos, called the cops to the stand, cross-examined, all the while getting the malocchio (bad eye in Italian) from the judges. Verdict: Guilty, pay up. I guess I watched too much Perry Mason when I was younger. But I did get 30 days to pay. : )

  • Traffic cases are difficult to win Joe in front of most judges. They tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops in my experience. Additionally too many judges view contested traffic ticket trials as a waste of their time, which is precisely the wrong attitude for them to have. They are paid to preside and decide. I can sympathize with a Judge who has a schedule to keep and a bench trial over, to him, a petty matter, is throwing off that schedule, but that is the nature of the business, and if a judge cannot conceal his impatience, then a mistake was made when he was given the black robe.

  • Other than a few outliers, the Democrats would never participate in it.

    Agreed. Erskine Bowles and Alice Rivlin do not preside over the congressional caucuses. Reid and Pelosi do. The conduct of the Democratic caucuses in the last three years have left quite a few of us wondering just where the bottom is.

  • Additionally too many judges view contested traffic ticket trials as a waste of their time, which is precisely the wrong attitude for them to have. They are paid to preside and decide.

    Here in New York, traffic cases are heard by JPs (commonly laymen) who usually serve part time and by hearing examiners appended to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. The JPs usually are not pressed for time and the hearing examiners are specialists. You’re still guilty.

  • Don, my defense in the first case, speeding, was lame. I was “keeping up with traffic,” going no slower or faster than the rest of the violators. Why pick on me? Also, I challenged the accuracy of the RADAR gun. In the second instance, I actually felt not guilty because it was in a construction zone at night and I was being tailgated by a car with very bright headlines and was trying to stay reasonably ahead so as not to be blinded. Little did I know until a few miles later that the car that was tailgating me was a squad car! He claimed I was
    “going too fast for conditions,” a situation he caused by following too close! The judge didn’t agree.

  • bright headlights…in previous

  • “The JPs usually are not pressed for time and the hearing examiners are specialists.”

    In Illinois Art everything is tried by real judges. Unpaid JPs handled traffic offenses in Illinois until 1970 when the Constitution was rewritten. In my town the local JP was an auto mechanic who would hear traffic cases in his garage. The JPs got a percentage of the fines so there was a built in conflict of interest. My guess is that the results today, at vastly greater cost, are not too different from the verdicts handed down long ago by that auto mechanic.

  • “Don, my defense in the first case, speeding, was lame. I was “keeping up with traffic,” going no slower or faster than the rest of the violators. Why pick on me? Also, I challenged the accuracy of the RADAR gun. In the second instance, I actually felt not guilty because it was in a construction zone at night and I was being tailgated by a car with very bright headlines and was trying to stay reasonably ahead so as not to be blinded. Little did I know until a few miles later that the car that was tailgating me was a squad car! He claimed I was “going too fast for conditions,” a situation he caused by following too close! The judge didn’t agree.”

    Those aren’t defenses Joe but they are factors in mitigation. If I were representing you here in Illinois, I would enter my appearance and request a jury trial. Then at the pre-trial I would have you enter a blind plea. At the sentencing I would mention the factors in mitigation. We already have brownie points from the judge since we aren’t actually taking it through to trial, and most judges are then willing to discount the fine asked for by the State if I can give them some basis to do so.

  • Well, I did manage to avoid points against my license in both cases so it wasn’t a total failure. Irony of ironies, I ran into the same cop a few months later and he let me off with a warning on a broken tail light, cutting me a break after the first encounter.

  • “Unless you can face $500,000 and ever upward of legal bills, I would suggest you be less catty about it.”

    I don’t doubt that was a legitimate consideration on her part. But what if she gets hit with all sorts of legal expenses while in the White House? Is she going to walk away from that job too? Sorry, but I just don’t have confidence in her ability to serve as POTUS yet. As I’ve said before on this blog, I think she should run for Congress or the Senate, or take a Cabinet position in a GOP administration (maybe Perry could make her Interior Secretary if he’s elected?), get a few years of federal level service under her belt and then consider running for POTUS.

    Say what you will about the virtue of not being a “Washington insider” or of “running government like a business,” since when is lack of experience considered a virtue when considering someone for one of the most important, most complex, and most stressful jobs on the planet?

    Would you deliberately seek out an inexperienced airline pilot, brain surgeon, or even plumber? Granted, “inexperienced” doesn’t automatically mean “incompetent”, and the young, inexperienced doctor, pilot, etc. may be naturally smarter than some who have been in the field for many years. Plus, the problem of inexperience will get better with time. Someone who is inexperienced now may not be in 5 or 10 years.

    But, all other things being equal, when you are talking about putting your life, or your property, in someone else’s hands, you want someone who has a proven record of handling that type of job well. Shouldn’t the same principle apply when choosing someone to become Commander in Chief, which is, after all, just as much a life or death job?

  • And before anyone jumps to conclusions, the same principles apply equally to Obama, who had very little federal level experience when first elected (less than 2 years in the U.S. Senate), and who now has a proven record of INcompetence in office.

  • But what if she gets hit with all sorts of legal expenses while in the White House? Is she going to walk away from that job too?

    Again, she was facing the legal expenses because of the nuisance suits allowed by some curios in Alaska ethics laws. Supporters of Gov. Palin set up a legal defense fund to help defray her expenses and the result was … another ethics complaint. Unless the applicable federal statutes can be exploited similarly, that is not an issue.

  • Art is correct Elaine. Under Alaska law an ethics complaint can be filed by anyone who pays the minor filing fee. Then the Alaskan state government was required to conduct an investigation, and Palin had to hire counsel out of her own pocket. A few deranged Palin haters were the prime filers of the ethics complaints, all of which I believe were found to be meritless. This “politics through litigation” has continued after Palin left office. Note the link below. Now of course Palin has earned enough in the private sector so responding to these deranged cranks will not bankrupt her family.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60573.html

  • If Sarah Palin will not make it as the nominee of the Republican party, it is because the owners let it be..

    It’s easy to win a congressional race as a tea partier, and to some extent some gubernatorial races, but that’s where the buck ends with the Republican machinery.

    If she is to win, there needs to be a third party. The only reason why conservatives in congress and media decry this is because it takes power away from their coporate owners.

  • No, if Sarah loses, it will be because the very type of voter who she needs to support her (people like me who happen to be BIG fans of hers) will have found another candidate that they would rather support. From a new poll of Iowa voters:

    “If you throw Sarah Palin into the mix the numbers are pretty similar with Perry at 21%, Romney at 18%, Bachmann at 15%, Paul at 12%, and Palin registering at only 10%…”

    Iowa is a state in which Palin SHOULD play extremely well – instead, she registers 5th in this poll. And, when you dig deeper into the numbers, it appears that she pulls more support away from Ron Paul than she does from Perry, Romney, and Bachmann combined. In short, mainstream conservatives in Iowa have, for the most part, settled on a different candidate than Palin.

    But, it’s early yet, and Palin is certainly the one person who could potentially change the dynamic of the race. I just hope she doesn’t do so by throwing the election to Romney. The fact that polls show him only 3 points off the lead in Iowa is cause for concern. If that fraud Romney should somehow pull off a win Iowa, it’s game, set, and match, folks.

  • if Sarah loses, it will be because the very type of voter who she needs to support her (people like me who happen to be BIG fans of hers) will have found another candidate that they would rather support.

    Bingo! I like her, but I simply see no path to victory for her in 2012. She has no room to grow with independents, unless the economy completely tanks. The people who are either indifferent to, unsure of, or unaware of Sarah Palin are those emerging from comas.

    The only grain of salt I’d add to that poll is that that’s what she’s polling in the absence of actually being in the race. Look what happened to Perry after he declared.

    And I agree about Romney–his real chance is rather like McCain’s in 2008: the more conservative candidates fracture the vote, and he takes the remainder.

  • Does anyone see Rick Santorum in the mix?

  • “Polarizing” if you really want to call it that is a good thing. Some of us call it divide and conquer. Psssst…We outnumber them. 2-1. Look it up. The “experts” are lecturing to us that if Mitt Romney is the nominee we will vote for Mitt Romney and if Sarah Palin is the nominee we will vote for Barack Obama. Hmmm…I didn’t go to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale (Heck I didn’t go to College at all) but I know crap when I hear it. I’m tired of the “experts” picking the nominee. Let’s divide and conquer. Polar-Rising! #PalinOrBust

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .