I'd watchdo Palin, just to brag to conservatives that I know. Then I'd toss her on the street in her underwear.

Sex dreams are not in the constitution!

You watch Sarah Palin the same way you watch a monkey with a nail gun -- for the mix of unintentional comedy and abject screaming terror.

Rest of Republicans: The Federal Government should impose Christian morality on everyone! Yay Jesus!

Ron Paul: Bah! The Feds suck. Let the states impose Christian morality on everyone instead! Yay Jesus!

Rush and Newt are on the list? I'm guessing this columnist drives a DeLorean.

This headline says so much about what's wrong with this country's government.

It's ok to listen to the idiot who's biggest acomplishment is graduating with a journalism degree and spouts the party line (poorly) at every given opportunity.

It's not ok to listen to somebody who is a medical doctor and has ideas outside the norm in Washington. (I won't say crazy, because most of the congresscritters have some crazy ideas. GAYZ=MURDERERS LOLZ!)

WTF is wrong with this country?

I assume when this headline says "to watch" it means it in the sense that you "watch" the guy down at the end of bar crying to himself and sharpening a knife. Just make sure to keep an eye on them so you don't find yourself waking up in a bathtub of ice with a note telling you to call 9/11 to start dialysis.

smooshie: Rest of Republicans: The Federal Government should impose Christian morality on everyone! Yay Jesus!

Ron Paul: Bah! The Feds suck. Let the states impose Christian morality on everyone instead! Yay Jesus!

Glad to see that you're informed.

I'll drop a name for "future Republican to watch":

Kevin McCarthy

Young guy, good communicator, "rising star" in the GOP. Keep an eye on him.

I assume by "to watch" they mean wait for these idiots to make fools of themselves again.

Bored Horde: I'd watchdo Palin, just to brag to conservatives that I know. Then I'd toss her on the street in her underwear.

...it's like Michael Moore meets Bangbus.

Rush Limbaugh?!? Honestly?

The only way I want to watch that blowhard is with a giant magnifying glass on a sunny day.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: You watch Sarah Palin the same way you watch a monkey with a nail gun -- for the mix of unintentional comedy and abject screaming terror.

considering that list has Both Palin and limbaugh as people we should watch, it's rather hard to take it seriously. Limbaugh probably won't fully go away until he works himself into a heart-attack. And I'll watch Palin if only because she'll be fun to watch as she shoots herself in the foot, but I don't see her as the GOP's nominee. Sure, she may have a dedicated following, but muhc like Hillary, she has more working against her than for her.

Last One Left: Sex dreams are not in the constitution!

For Ron Paul, the Constitution *is* a sex dream.

benlonghair: It's not ok to listen to somebody who is a medical doctor and has ideas outside the norm in Washington. (I won't say crazy, because most of the congresscritters have some crazy ideas. GAYZ=MURDERERS LOLZ!)

what is in a medical education that makes someone more qualified for political philosophy than someone who gets a journalism degree?

Hey, let's watch CNBC cut away from Ron Paul right after he told them that this is a failed financial system that needs to be replaced. Geez, can't that guy see that everything is working JUST FINE????

/ RON PAUL

Hell yes I'll watch those guys. It'll be funnier than Seinfeld.

Jindal: "What's the deal with volcano monitoring?"
Palin: "Dontchaknow, we need that volcano monitoring"
Steele: "We should write a rap about monitoring volcanoes!"

*Romney bursts into their apartment, followed by Cillizza*

Jindal, coldly: "Hello Cillizza."
Steele: "Chillizza! Now that's a name today's hip hop generation will love!"

KaponoFor3: I'll drop a name for "future Republican to watch":

Kevin McCarthy

Young guy, good communicator, "rising star" in the GOP. Keep an eye on him.

Hmm..let's look him up:

* Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
* Just say no--drug abusers lead dangerous lives. (Oct 2005)
* Stricter penalties for drug-related crimes. (Nov 2002)
# Supports vouchers for public, private, & religious schools. (Nov 2002)
# Supports Ten Commandments & abstinence-only sex ed. (Nov 2002)


yeah...pass. I ignored the abortion/gay marriage stuff, because I expect that in a republican, but the above makes me not even want to look much further.

what_now -- hey, I'm not saying everyone will agree with his positions/agenda, just saying that he appears to have been tapped by the GOP leadership as someone to really watch in the future.

Bloody William: ...it's like Michael Moore meets Bangbus.

What...what is "Bangbus"?!

/you know what, never mind.

KaponoFor3: what_now -- hey, I'm not saying everyone will agree with his positions/agenda, just saying that he appears to have been tapped by the GOP leadership as someone to really watch in the future.

Oh I know. I like to know details about anyone the GOP calls a "rising star".

Why don't you people ever say, "You know who could get a significant portion of the country to agree with her? Susan Collins."

Cause I'd vote for Susan Collins, and I'm a dirty hippy.

KaponoFor3: what_now -- hey, I'm not saying everyone will agree with his positions/agenda, just saying that he appears to have been tapped by the GOP leadership as someone to really watch in the future.

Which tells me that the GOP has learned precisely nothing. Call me when they're fast-tracking someone who is a fiscal fundamentalist and socially permissive instead of the other way around.

KaponoFor3: I'm not saying everyone will agree with his positions/agenda, just saying that he appears to have been tapped by the GOP leadership as someone to really watch in the future.

Yes, and they're idiots for doing it. Running on social conservatism will not save the Republican Party. It will simply turn more people off.

This is doubly true because the Hispanic population is becoming larger, and if Republicans alienate them the way they've alienated blacks, we're looking at a Democratically controlled nation for the foreseeable future.

what_now: Why don't you people ever say, "You know who could get a significant portion of the country to agree with her? Susan Collins."

Cause I'd vote for Susan Collins, and I'm a dirty hippy.

Susan Collins is a good example of a Republican I might vote for.

Of course, she'll never win because she'd never make it through the primary.

Rush is on the list huh? You know in a way it would be kind of interesting to have him as President. The country would get utterly destroyed, maybe not as bad as Bush did but then when he is voted out/impeached for being a loud mouth know nothing he will have nothing left to say. His show would be off the air and it would probably never come back. He is always talking about how much better he could do everything, well put up or shut up.

what_now: Susan Collins.

The only thing I don't like about her is that when she speaks she always sounds like she's on the verge of tears.

But I could get over that.

Last One Left: Sex dreams are not in the constitution!

Looks like someone's never read the 29th amendment.

Occam's Chainsaw: Which tells me that the GOP has learned precisely nothing. Call me when they're fast-tracking someone who is a fiscal fundamentalist and socially permissive instead of the other way around.

That's how I'd prefer my leaders as well, but everything I've read about McCarthy and heard while listening to him speak leads me to believe he is a fiscal fundamentalist. Socially permissive? That's another story it appears.

The Icelander: Yes, and they're idiots for doing it. Running on social conservatism will not save the Republican Party. It will simply turn more people off.

This is doubly true because the Hispanic population is becoming larger...

I actually think social conservatism helps the GOP when dealing with the rising Hispanic population in this country. Many of them are very religious and socially conservative as a result. If the GOP reached out to them and started making inroads, they could pick up huge gains in the coming years. That being said, they might want to re-tool some of the immigration rhetoric (not necessarily policy, just how it is presented) so that it seems less anti-Hispanic (which it definitely is for some GOP members) and more anti-illegal immigration as a whole (which is definitely is for other GOP members).

Fark-the-Fnord: Rush is on the list huh? You know in a way it would be kind of interesting to have him as President. The country would get utterly destroyed, maybe not as bad as Bush did but then when he is voted out/impeached for being a loud mouth know nothing he will have nothing left to say. His show would be off the air and it would probably never come back. He is always talking about how much better he could do everything, well put up or shut up.

Couldn't we just lock him in a room with a copy of Civ IV for a few weeks?

FeedTheCollapse: considering that list has Both Palin and limbaugh as people we should watch, it's rather hard to take it seriously. Limbaugh probably won't fully go away until he works himself into a heart-attack. And I'll watch Palin if only because she'll be fun to watch as she shoots herself in the foot, but I don't see her as the GOP's nominee. Sure, she may have a dedicated following, but muhc like Hillary, she has more working against her than for her.

This is how I kind of see 2012 playing out: Palin runs, and whips the right-wing base into a frenzy. The cooler heads of the party realize she has no chance, and work to get the nomination to Mitt Romney or someone like that. This demoralizes the right-wing base, and Obama wins fairly easy re-election.

This depends, of course, on many external factors, most notably the current financial crisis being over or at least ending by 2012. If the economy is in the shiatter as bad as it is now in 2012, or certainly if it's even worse, all bets are off, and Obama is in some trouble. Unless the GOP does go full retard and nominates Palin.

KaponoFor3: I actually think social conservatism helps the GOP when dealing with the rising Hispanic population in this country. Many of them are very religious and socially conservative as a result

I agree. Also, blacks are socially conservative as well. This helped the gay haters get Prop 8 passed.

But you're going to have a hard time changing the rhetoric on immigration, especially when there are so many people out there who don't seem to get it. Like Rush Limbaugh.

Not to mention the whole "poor people are lazy and steal my money through welfare." That's not going to get much play in a population of recent immigrants, who are a generation or two removed from people who fed their families with welfare.

\It would be nice if there were a religious group that wasn't socially conservative
\\But I think that says a lot about religion

Mr. Coffee Nerves: You watch Sarah Palin the same way you watch a monkey with a nail gun -- for the mix of unintentional comedy and abject screaming terror.

jake_lex: This is how I kind of see 2012 playing out: Palin runs, and whips the right-wing base into a frenzy. The cooler heads of the party realize she has no chance, and work to get the nomination to Mitt Romney or someone like that. This demoralizes the right-wing base, and Obama wins fairly easy re-election.

that's pretty much what I see. Though I'm not so sure about Romney. Romney if the economy isn't significantly better, Palin if it. Either way, I don't see either of them beating Obama unless he seriously farks up.

FeedTheCollapse: Romney if the economy isn't significantly better, Palin if it is.

ftfm

PALIN 2012!

I'll repost from an old thread:

When I think of Sarah Palin running her own campaign, I find I'm so excited, I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head. I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel, a free man at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain. I hope I can make it to one of her rallies. I hope to see my gal, and shake her hand. I hope the tundra is as white as it has been in my dreams. I hope.

The Icelander: \It would be nice if there were a religious group that wasn't socially conservative

Reform and even Conservative Jews and Episcopalians (and various other liberal protestant sects composed almost entirely of upper-middle class white liberals), at least in America, are generally pretty reasonable on those issues. And between them they represent a whopping 4% of the electoral pie! Compared to like 20% for nutbag evangelicals alone.

SusanIvanova: Reform and even Conservative Jews and Episcopalians (and various other liberal protestant sects composed almost entirely of upper-middle class white liberals), at least in America, are generally pretty reasonable on those issues. And between them they represent a whopping 4% of the electoral pie! Compared to like 20% for nutbag evangelicals alone.

Fact: There are more non-religious people in the country than there are blacks, jews, or Evangelicals.

The Icelander: Fact: There are more non-religious people in the country than there are blacks, jews, or Evangelicals.

I am indeed aware that there are a great many non-religious folk, and am indeed a non-religious person myself. However, "non-religious people" don't really count as a "religious group", per se. We don't go to non-churches together, or have a common unholy book or a hierarchy of anti-clergy.

SusanIvanova: I am indeed aware that there are a great many non-religious folk, and am indeed a non-religious person myself. However, "non-religious people" don't really count as a "religious group", per se. We don't go to non-churches together, or have a common unholy book or a hierarchy of anti-clergy.

So you mean I'm not a Nega-bishop?

SusanIvanova: I am indeed aware that there are a great many non-religious folk, and am indeed a non-religious person myself. However, "non-religious people" don't really count as a "religious group", per se. We don't go to non-churches together, or have a common unholy book or a hierarchy of anti-clergy.

I'd say that's a factor of lack of organization rather than an inherent

Not to mention that religious groups have had tons of lobbyists, and the non-religious have, well, one/ (new window)

Occam's Chainsaw: So you mean I'm not a Nega-bishop?

I think that at one time we had anti-clergy, but they accidentally interacted with clergy and were annihilated.

DamnYankees: When I think of Sarah Palin running her own campaign...

I think about how people watch NASCAR for the crashes.

The Icelander: I'd say that's a factor of lack of organization rather than an inherent

Well, members of an actual religious group generally have a common creed -- not merely belief in God, otherwise there'd only be one monotheistic religion -- but teachings of various prophets or other charismatic figures, accumulated traditions, a specifc holy book, etc., even if it's not perfectly followed in most cases, members of a particular denomination have very similar ethical beliefs.

Whereas non-religious people really don't have a unifying element like any particular religious group, and have don't particularly share ethical beliefs with each other. Most Marxists and many libertarians are non-religious, but they certainly farther apart in beliefs than say, any two randomly chosen Pentecostals.

How anyone can take Sarah Palin seriously, I don't know. She decries socialism while living in a state that subsidizes their citizens with oil company profits. Alaska also receives $1.83 in federal tax dollars in return for every dollar they pay in. And that 'abstinence only' education obviously worked for her family. She's a walking joke that only people with brains can understand, and her fans might as well be wearing their underwear outside their pants. Palin/Plumber 2012.

Bored Horde: Then I'd toss her on the street in her underwear.

There's a McCain joke in there somewhere I just know it.

All kidding aside, that the Republicans think Palin is worth watching is reason enough not to trust any of them.

Last One Left: Sex dreams are not in the constitution!

The Death Star plans are NOT in the main computer!

Limbaugh's a joke that people take too seriously. Palin is a bad joke people take too seriously. Both of these people ruin the image of their party by simply being allowed to associate them. They need to make some cuts. Republicans need to get over this stupid "sanctity of marriage" bullshiat. They also need to drop the anti-stem cell research position. Matter of fact, these guys needs to kick the ultra-religious element out of their party, because they're an albatross and scare away moderates. They also need to crack down on this "Well, if the Democrats like it we must hate it" bullshiat that has now made them the political equivalent of a bratty child.

/By the way, a medical degree is an ineffective measurement for an effective and qualified politician. See: Bill Frist.

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: Limbaugh's a joke that people take too seriously. Palin is a bad joke people take too seriously. Both of these people ruin the image of their party by simply being allowed to associate them. They need to make some cuts. Republicans need to get over this stupid "sanctity of marriage" bullshiat. They also need to drop the anti-stem cell research position. Matter of fact, these guys needs to kick the ultra-religious element out of their party, because they're an albatross and scare away moderates. They also need to crack down on this "Well, if the Democrats like it we must hate it" bullshiat that has now made them the political equivalent of a bratty child.

The problem is that deranged fundies are a huge slice of the Republican party. They represent a good 20% of the electorate -- and 50% of the GOP, are easily led, fairly well-organized, vote in large numbers, are almost entirely Republican, and have a specific and uniform political agenda (gays, evolution, abortion, in that order).

It is impossible to win a GOP primary without the tacit assent, if not the enthusiastic embrace, of the nutjobs.

From a practical point of view, the GOP tossing the evangelicals would be on par with the Democrats chucking out racial minorities as part of its electoral coalition. Simply can't be done.