I think the democrats and the media are afraid of Palin.
I would vote for her based on what I know today. Of course, if she runs for president the liberal media will most likely again bring up false charges as they did here and amazingly the day after the election she was found innocent. Now how about that!
I have talked to democrats that would vote for Palin. Most folks from both parties are sick of the die in the wool, same ole same ole politicans.
__________________
Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.
Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.
Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.
Painful moments, TRUST GOD.
Every moment, THANK GOD.
Mike, your quite the comedian! Your political acumen is pretty sharp I think you think. Remember "Lieberman Is Going to Pay the Piper"?
Palin was the BEST thing to ever happen to McCain. He didn't lose because of her, he actually gave himself a fighting chance. She ignited his base, which he did not have and brought his numbers up to a competitive level. Mac likes her I believe, it was his handlers that ended up blaming her for the loss because it was actually his and their fault.
The last president to get elected b/c of his VP selection was JFK.
People didn't vote for Mac for two reasons: the economy tanked at the worst possible time for him (probably the biggest reason) which was unavoidable, and second because he wasn't willing to truly go on attack mode with Rev. Wright, Ayers, Rezko et al early enough to cause people to really question the wisdom of choosing BO.
Dole tried to play nice with Clinton in '96 and look what it got him.
Mac wasn't the strongest candidate for the GOP, but the GOP really didn't field strong enough candidates in a year that would've taken a resurrected Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt to pull it off. Palin had nothing to do with Mac's loss. He lost it on his own.
The fact that Palin causes such dramatic reactions from you all proves to me that she is a formidable candidate for the future and the liberals and the media elite must consistently frame her in a negative light to kill any potential might have of running again. If she was such a baffoon and ball and chain to the GOP, you all ought to be rejoicing she has a chance in 2012. She would be so easy to defeat, right?
Mac would be stupid to endorse ANYBODY barely a month and a half after the election and not even a month before the new one is inaugurated. A lot can (and probably will) happen in the next four years and the whole political landscape will surely be vastly different in 2012. Especially if our new prez gets "tested" by some rogue nation or terrorist group.
Can anybody remember ANYONE of stature endorsing a candidate four years in advance? It is really, really stupid to interpret this interview as a slight by Mac toward Palin.
If you seriously believe that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made McCain's pitch on the economy any better than Caribou Sarah you seriously need a refresher on politics 101. McCain's base was going to turn out and vote against Obama because of all your foolish "Muslim", birth certificate-gate and other conspiracy theories. The same type of voter who actually connected with Sarah Palin, were in the tank for Mac.
What most of us knew was that McCain somehow had to reach out to the moderate swing voter which Sarah Palin didn't do a thing for. Your Sarah Palin effect analysis is erroneous.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
If you seriously believe that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made McCain's pitch on the economy any better than Caribou Sarah you seriously need a refresher on politics 101. McCain's base was going to turn out and vote against Obama because of all your foolish "Muslim", birth certificate-gate and other conspiracy theories. The same type of voter who actually connected with Sarah Palin, were in the tank for Mac.
What most of us knew was that McCain somehow had to reach out to the moderate swing voter which Sarah Palin didn't do a thing for. Your Sarah Palin effect analysis is erroneous.
For Mac to pick another white guy to be his VP selection would have only fueled the media to make the comparisons of how out of touch the GOP was with diverse America. The very presence of Obama in any forum spoke change even if you weren't listening to him. Two white GOP men on the ticket would've made the margin of defeat even greater. The imagery would've been such a contrast. This was going to be a historic election with Obama out there. Obama passed on a sure-fire landslide victory by bypassing Hillary. Mac and his people knew they had to bring a change agent on the ticket and capitalize on Obama's missed golden opportunity.
Palin pulled so many components together: women, Christians, conservatives, hunters and gun advocates, right to lifers, special needs children, mothers, hockey moms, mothers of a pregnant teens, people whose issue was oil, conservationists, people who voted for people from outside Washington, people for low taxes, etc. It was an excellent pick and the best pick for Mac.
People voted for change but ultimately the economy made it a slam dunk for Obama. Romney would not have made a difference. Once the economy tanked, it was too late for Mac. He could've nominated the Virgin Mary and it would not have made a difference. The economy's dramatic drop caused a significant percentage of voters to blithely vote for BO without truly considering the consequences. "The GOP is in the White House, the economy
nosedives, it must be the Republicans fault, let's vote Democrat" became the knee-jerk judgment of many. Later data showed that many Obama voters were fairly ill-informed about the candidate they had voted for. The media frenzy to feast on Palin's flesh gave the appearance that she was Mac's albatross. The truth is Mac and his people ran a poor campaign coupled with a failed economy at the worst time possible. He was doomed in the final six weeks.
The influence of the centrist, swing voter, if they actually exist, is overblown and considered a myth by most credible political scientists. Pop media and mainstream media talk every election cycle about the "swing voter" making the difference for a candidate. Studies show and the results are evident that when a Republican candidate seeks to play the middle (Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain) they lose. This country is a center-right country. Voters vote for conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats. Every Democrat from Carter to Clinton to Obama has had to portray himself as a "centrist" to win elections. Voters vote for more conservative Democrats (or at least those who will distance themselves from the extreme left of their party or paint themselves as reasonable Dems). Liberal Democrats always lose when they unabashedly embrace the identity (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry).
There is not the time or the space here but a little research on the swing voter myth and you'll see much data has been gathered to debunk it, even if Chris Matthews, Margaret Carlson, Keith Olbermann, David Gergen, James Carville, and all the other politicos on cable news talk about their existence.
McCain insured his demise by trying to be a "centrist". He was never fully embraced by the right in the GOP until Palin. James Dobson was on record he would not vote for Mac. He changed course once Palin was nominated. Instead of reaching for the base himself Mac let Palin do it while he sought after the unicorn that is the"swing voter". People don't vote for a Vice President, they vote for a President. Mac was the one who mattered and the conservative and religious base didn't matter to Mac. Even with Palin, Mac lost a lot of base voters because he has spent his career trying to be the middle of the road guy. Seeking the swing voter for Republicans is a recipe for disaster.
You can pin the loss on Palin all you want Mikey, but it only ends up showing that your information gathering and your sense of current events in light of history comes from the shallow end of the media pool.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
For Mac to pick another white guy to be his VP selection would have only fueled the media to make the comparisons of how out of touch the GOP was with diverse America. The very presence of Obama in any forum spoke change even if you weren't listening to him. Two white GOP men on the ticket would've made the margin of defeat even greater. The imagery would've been such a contrast. This was going to be a historic election with Obama out there. Obama passed on a sure-fire landslide victory by bypassing Hillary. Mac and his people knew they had to bring a change agent on the ticket and capitalize on Obama's missed golden opportunity.
Palin pulled so many components together: women, Christians, conservatives, hunters and gun advocates, right to lifers, special needs children, mothers, hockey moms, mothers of a pregnant teens, people whose issue was oil, conservationists, people who voted for people from outside Washington, people for low taxes, etc. It was an excellent pick and the best pick for Mac.
People voted for change but ultimately the economy made it a slam dunk for Obama. Romney would not have made a difference. Once the economy tanked, it was too late for Mac. He could've nominated the Virgin Mary and it would not have made a difference. The economy's dramatic drop caused a significant percentage of voters to blithely vote for BO without truly considering the consequences. "The GOP is in the White House, the economy
nosedives, it must be the Republicans fault, let's vote Democrat" became the knee-jerk judgment of many. Later data showed that many Obama voters were fairly ill-informed about the candidate they had voted for. The media frenzy to feast on Palin's flesh gave the appearance that she was Mac's albatross. The truth is Mac and his people ran a poor campaign coupled with a failed economy at the worst time possible. He was doomed in the final six weeks.
The influence of the centrist, swing voter, if they actually exist, is overblown and considered a myth by most credible political scientists. Pop media and mainstream media talk every election cycle about the "swing voter" making the difference for a candidate. Studies show and the results are evident that when a Republican candidate seeks to play the middle (Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain) they lose. This country is a center-right country. Voters vote for conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats. Every Democrat from Carter to Clinton to Obama has had to portray himself as a "centrist" to win elections. Voters vote for more conservative Democrats (or at least those who will distance themselves from the extreme left of their party or paint themselves as reasonable Dems). Liberal Democrats always lose when they unabashedly embrace the identity (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry).
There is not the time or the space here but a little research on the swing voter myth and you'll see much data has been gathered to debunk it, even if Chris Matthews, Margaret Carlson, Keith Olbermann, David Gergen, James Carville, and all the other politicos on cable news talk about their existence.
McCain insured his demise by trying to be a "centrist". He was never fully embraced by the right in the GOP until Palin. James Dobson was on record he would not vote for Mac. He changed course once Palin was nominated. Instead of reaching for the base himself Mac let Palin do it while he sought after the unicorn that is the"swing voter". People don't vote for a Vice President, they vote for a President. Mac was the one who mattered and the conservative and religious base didn't matter to Mac. Even with Palin, Mac lost a lot of base voters because he has spent his career trying to be the middle of the road guy. Seeking the swing voter for Republicans is a recipe for disaster.
You can pin the loss on Palin all you want Mikey, but it only ends up showing that your information gathering and your sense of current events in light of history comes from the shallow end of the media pool.
Sarah Palin didn't lose the election for John McCain. I've never pinned the loss on her completely. We all knew given the failure of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress, Mac had a major uphill task.
Sarah Palin actually hurt him though. Her ineptness and lack of knowledge on important foreign policy issues and even domestic ones, compromised John McCain's best argument against BO. It took the whole lack of experience argument off the table. That was the MAJOR guffaw of her pick. Very rarely did the McCain campaign attack Obama's lack of credentials and experience after the Palin pick.
They would have kept that issue on their side with a pick like Mitt Romney. Romney's solid economic experience would have put Obama on defense. We can agree to disagree and I respect your opinion, but history will view it as a major blunder in his campaign even though it wasn't the deciding factor.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
Mike, your quite the comedian! Your political acumen is pretty sharp I think you think. Remember "Lieberman Is Going to Pay the Piper"?
Palin was the BEST thing to ever happen to McCain. He didn't lose because of her, he actually gave himself a fighting chance. She ignited his base, which he did not have and brought his numbers up to a competitive level. Mac likes her I believe, it was his handlers that ended up blaming her for the loss because it was actually his and their fault.
The last president to get elected b/c of his VP selection was JFK.
People didn't vote for Mac for two reasons: the economy tanked at the worst possible time for him (probably the biggest reason) which was unavoidable, and second because he wasn't willing to truly go on attack mode with Rev. Wright, Ayers, Rezko et al early enough to cause people to really question the wisdom of choosing BO.
Dole tried to play nice with Clinton in '96 and look what it got him.
Mac wasn't the strongest candidate for the GOP, but the GOP really didn't field strong enough candidates in a year that would've taken a resurrected Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt to pull it off. Palin had nothing to do with Mac's loss. He lost it on his own.
The fact that Palin causes such dramatic reactions from you all proves to me that she is a formidable candidate for the future and the liberals and the media elite must consistently frame her in a negative light to kill any potential might have of running again. If she was such a baffoon and ball and chain to the GOP, you all ought to be rejoicing she has a chance in 2012. She would be so easy to defeat, right?
Mac would be stupid to endorse ANYBODY barely a month and a half after the election and not even a month before the new one is inaugurated. A lot can (and probably will) happen in the next four years and the whole political landscape will surely be vastly different in 2012. Especially if our new prez gets "tested" by some rogue nation or terrorist group.
Can anybody remember ANYONE of stature endorsing a candidate four years in advance? It is really, really stupid to interpret this interview as a slight by Mac toward Palin.
Actually going on the attack was probably one reason he did lose. He was long on anti-Obama rhetoric and short on explaining exactly what he will be doing, how he will be doing it and just how electing him won't be 4 more years of bush.
He should have, along with all Republicans, pointed out harder how most of our economic woes was the Democratic failure
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Actually going on the attack was probably one reason he did lose. He was long on anti-Obama rhetoric and short on explaining exactly what he will be doing, how he will be doing it and just how electing him won't be 4 more years of bush.
He should have, along with all Republicans, pointed out harder how most of our economic woes was the Democratic failure
You are right about that, Prax. I think Bill O'Reilly pointed that out more, but still no one listened.
What is so amazing is that Caroline Kennedy is being considered for Hillary's Senate seat with NO experience. Palin was Mayor and Governor, but had no experience and wasn't good enough. Go figure.
I'm not even sure it was the economy that tanked them both. I saw them grooming Obama over four years ago (at least when it was totally visible) for some position. I didn't think it was the presidency. I've never seen it done like it was this time. Right over our heads and out the door. Astonishing. I'm still astonished by it all.
Linear Mode
