and I read that McCain failed to endorse her for 2012 in an interview - nm
Posted By: Amanda on 2009-04-17
In Reply to: I have just seen that Palin was called a leader of the GOP party but be truthful - Very serious question here
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
D*ick Cheney has emerged from hiding to endorse McCain.
Ask yourself if his ethusiastic endorsement is based on his desire for change...or what, the emphasis being on the what part of that question.
McCain: " I Can't Promise to Endorse Sarah Palin"
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/14/mccain-wont-endorse-palin-for-2012/
You obviously failed to read the entire link.
to back up her claims. I don't need to research this further. I was a 40+ grown-up when the confirmation hearings were held and I remember them vividly, since it was one of the most blatent miscarriages of justice I have witnessed first-hand in my entire life. I was a bit more naive back then but now, of course, I understand completely how the Bushes operate and how this could have happened under their watch.
I saw the McCain interview.
She basically asked McCain the identical questions about Obama so McCain could trash him. I'll see if I can find the link.
There was just an interview on CNBC with both McCain and Palin
They also want to rein in spending. They will be looking at all the government agencies and seeing where there can be cutbacks. Pork Barrel spending will be frozen.
There will be more on their plans throughout the evening on CNBC. I will be watching.
Where do I endorse hate??
nm
Brilliant investors who endorse Obama
You'll have to consult your usual right-wing rant rags to get the answer you want to hear. Learned a while back that trying to engage you in any sort of intelligent dialog is a waste of time and energy.
Any of you McCain fans read this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
McCain supporters - read this -
"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."
McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:
"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."
He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."
If he can understand that they just have differences, why can't we all agree on that and quit all this name calling and hatred and just talk about the issues and what we can do about our part of the world no matter who gets elected?
To read the whole story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_angry_crowds
That should read: McCain directly denied
then continue reading the above post. time for another cup of coffee.
I read that he is not offering McCain any positions -
I read that he was just talking to him about how they could best handle senatorial stuff - that he would not be offering him a position anywhere.
Workers walk off job rather than read McCain script.
Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/dozens_of_call_center_workers.php
And yet it's you who failed...
You failed to mention ANY of the points touched on in the article.
Do you have nothing intelligent to say about the Biden situation?
Or are you just gleefully sniping your nasty little comments at anyone who's not as O-gasmic as you are?
The fact is that, while Obama may dodge responsibility by saying he's not technically the president yet, the rest of the world does not give a rip about that technicality, and is, instead, watching what he is DOING. And that, my friend, includes sending his lacky Biden on this little overseas stint.
Maybe you'd care to stick to the topic, instead of the usual O-gasmatron response of sidestepping the real issue.
We have never failed our wounded before.
Federal disaster relief has arrived within hours at every other national catastrophe as far back as 1912. All they had then was wagons and horses and a lot of strong backs - and they did far better than Bush and his cohorts with all their (our) money and modern machinery. There's nothing wrong with America or Americans - what's wrong sits squarely in the White House, a big rotten sore on the otherwise healthy fruit.
failed geography?
small state of Alaska???
Of course she can do BOTH, she has obviously proven that, and the baby has Down syndrome, he is not physically disabled!
It is not failed policies.
You can promote those programs, but in this culture, sex-saturated media, desensitization to the point of sex is just an expression and you don't even have to like each other, multiple partners, the whole 9 yards. No program is going to work at this point. Birth control information is out there. How, in this culture, could you even say abstinence with a straight face? Doesn't mean I don't think it should be mentioned, because if it causes 1 or 2 kids not to engage in premarital sex, much better. Most social programs are failed policies...and a huge waste and drain on the government. That is one thing I like about both candidates...they say they will get rid of the social programs that don't work. Trouble is...they never identify which programs. lol.
He had another chance to do that and he failed
When he was just in Hawaii. A very simple trip to get his bc and prove to everyone he is legal would have solved everything, but he didn't do that.
He is basically saying to the country. I know I don't meet the legal qualifications, so what. There's nothing you can do about it.
Here's what I would like to see by 2012
1. Get rid of the electoral college. It's obsolete and completely out of touch with its constituents now. It was necessary when it was instituted - the country was young with a large portion of its population being illiterate, without the technology for communication we have today, etc.
2. No more presidential candidates/elections. Let's put all the issues on a nation-wide ballot and vote. Decide what we, as a nation, want to do about all of the national issues.
3. Once we have our voted decisions on the national issues, hire a President to carry out what the nation has decided to do. Provide the criteria to be realized for a successful employment scenario and what would constitute failure in the role. Maintain the right to terminate for failure. Bonus for success. No bonus, no severance pay for failure. Charges for corruption.
I'm done.
You have failed to answer any questions
You have been asked several times by different posters what you would propose to do to keep America safe. You avoid that question. All you seem to be able to do is criticize and insult others and essentially run people off this board who deviate from your extreme views. Sorry I invaded your hatefest.
And Bush failed that first test.
after 8 years of failed policies...
I don't see how Obama could possibly do any harm. Bush has just officially been rated the 36th out of 42 presidents by a nonpartisan board of scholars.
Obama has his work cut out for him to clean up the mess that the republican president, senate and house created over the last 8-12 years.
Both administrations have failed us miserably!
xx
Not really shocking....she wants to run again in 2012.
No one knows how they are going to vote. No one knows what they are saying behind closed doors, although they give Obama lukewarm support to the public. I would not be surprised if they vote for McCain. Would not surprise me at all. Would not surprise me if they are, in unseen ways, subverting Obama's cammpaign.
And then again, maybe Bill is being honest and really feels that way. It is true, McCain has always acknowledged global warming and climate change, much to the dismay of many of his colleagues, and he does have a better record on it than Obama does. McCain has never toed the party line, and that is one of the things I like most about him.
I'm with you! Arnold 2012!!! (nm)
*
Schwarzenegger 2012!!!
LOL!!!
We WILL have an election in 2012 - that is what most go by
The audacity to automatically assume Obama will serve until 2017 is what is going to get you in trouble.
Since you don't understand the simple concept let me explain it for you. Please read slowly so you can grasp reality.
Since America has had it's first president we have had elections every four years. Therefore, seeing as we have just had an election in 2008 and Obama takes office in 2009, our next election will be in 2012.
Your antics and rhetoric of just assuming that Obama will be in there for a second term I would say is a bit premature. Let's let him at least get sworn in and see what kind of a job he does as president. A lot can happen in four years. If he survives then in four years he can think of running again. If Bill Clinton had done half the stuff he did in his second term when he was in his first term he might have not had a second term. We don't know yet if Obama will be keeping his campaign promises or what kind of President he will be.
Here's some reality for you. Obama may turn out to be an absolutely fantastic president. We can all hope for that. So...he could turn out to be a good president and then again he may not be a good president. We won't know until after he has served in the role. Also, you are assuming that because GW was not a good president that every single other living republican would not be a good president and that is just not true. If you believe that then you have a very distorted viewpoint of politics. There are some very good republicans and there are some very good democrats. Just like there are some very bad republicans and there are some very bad democrats. Obama is too new and we don't know what category he falls into yet.
The truth of the matter is that we WILL have another election in four years. Which means the republican party has got four years to really get it together and pick someone that is decent to run against whoever the next democratic nominee will be, whether it is Obama or if he doesn't last whoever else they are going to put in there.
Also we have the congress/senate/house to think of - you know all those people who vote on issues and who have gotten our country in the trouble it is in now (I'm not blaming either side alone - there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides). No, sorry to burst your bubble but GW didn't crap on this country all by his little ol self. The people in the senate who vote on issues did that. So...if for the next four years we see a continuation of the decline of our country, America will probably say, enough with the democrats, we need to bring back a republican president. Not very many people are keen on the idea that every single thing is now being run by one political side. We do need a balance to our government.
One other factor to think about is all the people that Obama is appointing to his cabinet. I'm seeing on this board by a lot of posts that there are a lot of people who, while they are enthusiastic and excited that Obama was elected, they are way not excited that he keeps bringing the old Clinton people back and people who have no experience. Those were the same people who made a mess of things back then and now he's bringing them back in. What he owes them I have no idea but for him to campaign that he is the ONLY candidate who can unite the two parties and he will hire both sides to evenly balance things, that is the first campaign promise he has broken.
Lastly, without any doubt there are some scandals looming about. These are not fabrications. It's just the truth. People he was involved with and are still involved with. Who he owes favors to, the BC thing (whether or not it will get resolved is another story). There is just too much to be ignored. I do understand the loathing that people have for Bush and they would have rather elected a dog rather than another republican, therefore most were saying, so what and tried to bebunk a lot of the issues, however, the issues are real and will not be going away. Not saying that GW doesn't have his share of issues, but I'm not writing a post about GW. Anyway...with the issues that Obama has, one just doesn't know what the next four years will bring for us.
So, taking all that in account, a better approach would be to just say you hope Obama is a good president (as we all do because we want to see our country succeed) and in four years if he turns out to be good then he will be up for re-election. However to just say that its a fact that he will be in for 8 years is a bit arrogant (and nauseating).
Of course there will be an election in 2012
and with the GOP ensconced in this kind of denial and its party still in shambles, the results are a foregone conclusion. Thus, the 2929 count continues. The OP is the only prescription the GOP has to even hope to have a noticeable presence in 2012.
2012 candidate
A possible candidate. I hope so.
http://draftsanford2012.com/
When trying to reinvent one's own failed party platform,
It sort of goes hand in hand with stealing elections.
And thank goodness California's failed; dont want
.
Univ Healthcare has failed every time. Why is our
nm
None of this will matter after December 2012 anyway.
and the bickering goes on and on and on, until when? Till 2012?
Good night !
I seriously hope she's not campaigning for 2012.
I think that would be a huge mistake on her part. I think she over-estimates her popularity.
Sorry - "...will be running for office in 2012". SM
We must throw the current residents of Washington out of office, including this loony-left total disaster of a President, his cronies, and also the folks on the other side of the aisle who have become entrenched in power and have been no better in representing the middle-of-the-road Americans who by far constitute the majority in this country.
Let's CLEAN HOUSE!
In 2012 none of our votes will matter, if anyone
The signs will be obvious and the end will be eminent. You should worry less about politics and more about your soul, as should we all.
I'm becoming more hopeful by the day. By 2012, the chickens
...a lot of voters will have lost their enchantment with the "idea" of voting for a President on the basis of his race or his superficial, glib mannerisms. In fact, if the Democrats themselves continue on the path they're starting to follow, I'm not entirely sure he'll be renominated!
The press can't change any of this, either. About 80% of the American population doesn't even watch the evening news on any of the so-called "main" networks.
Obama's universal plan failed miserably in other
nm
They know what is coming but they failed to stop this from happening in the first place?
They didn't have to stand and who really cares? They let us go down the toilet in the first place and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The doom and gloom you speak about will be your existence because that is all you can see.
American undeveloped nation by 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqW1-aA5aMg
Did he decide to cancel the 2012 election? (nm)
*
Tired trite campaign slogans from a failed candidacy
have less than zero value after the losers have gone home to lick their wounds.
With the vast wasteland that is the GOP 2012 field of contenders
don't expect her to come out from under the microscope anytime soon. Nailin Palin will become a national passtime at least until then. It is helpful to document anything and everything along the way so that patterns of behavior and subsequent analysis can be backed up with concrete data, not smear, innuendo and baseless accusations. Pretty much, that's how elections are won, or lost, depending on where you're coming from.
If Palin pursues prez bid in 2012, lies matter.
All of them. Vigilent watch on Obama is the order of the day and pervades dialog on this forum. Doesn't hurt to start the SP watch now, document it well and be prepared.
as opposed to the vast wasteland of one (Obama) demigod in 2012...
I know it is not the same interview.
What I was saying is that he outlines in this interview what he feels is the big problem with the White House.
Did you see the interview......
with those three men who were recently released after being hostages in Columbia? I was about in tears when that one guy was talking about being locked in boxes at night and how he would think about his daughter. When he talked about them having no indication of being released and then him and two guys looked out and saw a rainbow......he knew they would get out and go home but he just didn't know when. That rainbow was a sign to him that God was going to get them through. To be able to have such faith in a time like that. Makes my problems seem so small compared to what they went through. I can't even imagine. The one man said that he finally got to meet his 5 y/o twin boys for the first time as they had not been born when he was taken hostage.
No, I did not see that particular interview...
but have read a lot and it is indeed inspiring. And personally I believe trials are when faith is the strongest, you dig deep and find strength you never thought you had. And you are the most open to God communicating to you...like the rainbow communicating to the man and the Holy Spirit confirming that they would be rescued. And yes, when you hear of something like this, certainly does put one's own problems in perspective, doesn't it?
Then why not do an interview for someone who...
doesn't get a tingle up their leg when you speak? Who is going to ask you the hard questions? He avoided that for over a year. If he is so confident, so ready to lead, why let little old Fox News scare him? Your argument rings very hollow...and it is the koolaid you should be reaching for, not chocolate...lol.
I saw that interview
What I didn't see was the reporter questioning McCain/Palin. Did that happen? What kind of questions did she ask THEM? With her attitude, I certainly do not blame Obama/Biden. She admitted on Larry King, I think it was, that she is a Republican. Another conclusion I've come to. Rabid Republicans have poor eyesight!
yup, that was an interview by someone from
man I can't think of his name right now. He has a side kick lady, but you were listening to the same one. The guy with long hair and sunglasses....Stern. That's him. While it was amusing, it was also an eye opener. Even Stern who is very liberal was shocked at the stupidity.
|
