Sarah Palin in, then out, back in - and now again out of fundraising dinner

[WoodysGirl]

By JONATHAN MARTIN (http://www.politico.com/reporters/JonathanMartin.html) | 6/7/09 8:07 PM EDT


Sarah Palin’s on-again, off-again appearance at Monday night’s gala GOP fundraising dinner is off — again.


After being invited — for a second time — to speak to the annual joint fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Palin was told abruptly Saturday night that she would not be allowed to address the thousands of Republicans there after all.


The Alaska governor may now skip the dinner altogether, and her allies are miffed at what they see as a slight from the congressional wing of the Republican Party.


The reason given for the snub, said a Palin aide, was that NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions was concerned about not wanting to upstage former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the fundraising gala’s keynote speaker.


“A great deal of effort has been put into this fundraising event, and Speaker Gingrich has gone above and beyond the call of duty,” said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain. “It is our hope that Gov. Palin will attend the dinner and be recognized, but we understand if her busy schedule doesn’t permit her to do so.”


The disinvitation from speaking, said a campaign committee official, was done “out of respect” for Gingrich.


“You dance with the one who brung ya,” said the official, who stressed that event organizers were still happy to have Palin appear and be introduced.


Ironically, Palin was originally supposed to be the headliner for the dinner. NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas wanted the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee to speak. And officials with the two party committees thought earlier this spring that she had committed, even going so far as to issue a press release announcing her appearance.


But after public uncertainty as to whether she had actually accepted and would attend, the NRSC and NRCC decided to invite Gingrich instead.


Palin aides in Alaska say the governor never accepted that first invitation and attributed the mix-up to Washington-based advisers.


But then last week — in part due to the urging of Republican überfundraiser and Palin friend Fred Malek — the NRSC extended a new invitation for Palin to speak. The plan, Republican sources say, was to make her appearance something of a surprise for GOP donors in attendance.


Palin was in New York this weekend on a mix of state and personal business — she celebrated the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood Saturday at a large celebration in Auburn, N.Y., the hometown of William Seward of “Seward’s Folly” fame — and the idea was that she’d swing down to the capital on Monday for the dinner before flying on to Texas for energy-related events.


Palin’s staff had even been sent an agenda with the governor’s speaking slot included.


But then a finance official with the NRSC called Palin aide Meg Stapleton Saturday night to say that Sessions didn’t want Palin to speak.


Recounting the conversation Sunday, Stapleton said she told the NRSC staffer: “Why, at a time when we’re trying to build the party, would you pull a move like that on somebody who earlier in the day just attracted 20,000 people?”


Palin was to sit the table of NRSC Chairman John Cornyn of Texas, and Senate campaign committee officials were still trying Sunday to persuade the Alaska governor to attend.



“Although the governor was unable to commit far enough in advance to be confirmed as the keynote, Sen. Cornyn has a great deal of respect and admiration for Gov. Palin, which is why he invited her to be his guest at the dinner,” said NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh. “He hopes she will be able to attend but recognizes she also has a lot of competing demands on her schedule, so he also understands if she is not able to make it. Regardless, she is an important leader in our party and is someone who Sen. Cornyn thinks very highly of.”


Malek, for decades a major behind-the-scenes player in the GOP, made note of his disappointment that Palin was not coming.


“Sarah Palin is one of the most popular and magnetic figures in the Republican Party, and it would have been great to see her at the House-Senate dinner,” Malek said. “But I guess it’s just hard in the final days to adjust a program that has been carefully developed weeks in advance.”


Niceties aside, this latest snafu involving Palin and the national party apparatus has left both sides deeply irritated.


Tired of being derided as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, Palin officials want it known that they were not responsible for this latest mix-up. They say the governor was happy to appear and fire up party loyalists, but that, yet again, GOP operatives and officials in Washington would just as soon try to marginalize her.


But the dinner’s planners are equally exasperated with Palin. The NRCC, especially, is still irked about how she handled the original invitation in March, leaving the two committees scrambling to find a fill-in for what is their chief money-raising event of the year.


“It was Pete who had invited her to the dinner early on,” carped one campaign committee official about the initial process. “And she accepted, then unaccepted.”


It was Cornyn’s decision to move on and invite Gingrich, say House Republican officials, and his attempts to still bring her to the dinner are being seen by some as an effort to make amends with conservative activists who are miffed at him now in part because of his intervention on behalf of the more moderate candidate in the Florida GOP Senate primary.


But beyond one scheduling issue, this latest dust-up speaks to the ongoing turmoil within a beleaguered GOP. Palin is still a major draw — hence her original invitation — and many in the grass roots of the party think she’s got incomparable charisma and just-folks appeal. As Palin appeared in Auburn and elsewhere in Central New York this weekend, locals and even some who’d traveled long distances to see her encouraged her to mount a White House bid.


But many in the party establishment, mindful of her polarizing persona and the devastating caricatures that emerged last fall, would prefer she remain in Alaska and leave the party rebuilding to others who may appeal to the broad middle of the country.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23454_Page2.html

[Doomsday101]

Regarless what the party thinks or her critics Palin polls well with republican voters I think the party is making a mistake by not having her at this fund raiser

[burmafrd]

The PARTY ESTABLISHMENT is the ones responsible for the present party STATUS. SO why anyone would want to listen to them is a mystery.
And frankly Newt Gingrich is every bit of a lightning rod as palin is so ...

[Doomsday101]

The PARTY ESTABLISHMENT is the ones responsible for the present party STATUS. SO why anyone would want to listen to them is a mystery.
And frankly Newt Gingrich is every bit of a lightning rod as palin is so ...

I agree Gingrich just made comments last week of Sotomayor being a racist then takes it back. I don't know if Palin can win or not but I do know she has a lot of popularity with republican voters and the party is skating on thin ice when they snub a popular candidate such as Palin.

[sbark]

if memory serves me right.......the GOP party blue blood establishment fought the idea of Ronald Reagan to a similar degree as they abhor S.Palin, especially on supply side economic's issues

they want to be invited to the establishment wine & cheese parties, thrown by NY Libs & DC moderates as much as anyone..........

Reagan got alot of Indepent/moderate & blue dog democrat voters...by not even trying to pretend to be a democrat.........

[DIAF]

Reagan got alot of Indepent/moderate & blue dog democrat voters...by not even trying to pretend to be a democrat.........

Or by following a disastrous, unpopular President.

[burmafrd]

And then how do you explain 1984?

[bbgun]

And then how do you explain 1984?

You can't tell from his posts, but he's a life-long Republican. Just ask him.

[DIAF]

And then how do you explain 1984?

There's already been a thread where we argued this. Reagan was able to pull together more moderates (swing voters) than Mondale. Not because americans are somehow "more conservative" as some tried to argue then. It also didn't hurt that Mondale was a terrible candidate. Anytime you have landslides like 80 and 84, it's going to be aided in part by having an idiot candidate or a bad campaign on the other side.

Just go back to 1996 if you want a recent example. Dole got killed (in part) because his folks had no idea how to run a campaign. They sat around for a good part of a year just treading water until throwing it all into a last-minute multistate sweep. You barely knew Dole was even running up until that point.

[burmafrd]

since Goldwater how many conservative Republican candidates have lost the presidential election? One- Dole, and that was because he ran a horrendous campaign (and because Perot siphoned some of the vote). If Dole had run a good campaign I think he wins. McCain was never a real conservative.
McGovern was a lib. HUmphrey was a lib. Ford was not a conservative. Neither was Bush senior (the Perot factor really hurt him). Gore and Kerry were libs. Obama was the one real liberal who got elected and we all know why.

[poke]

since Goldwater how many conservative Republican candidates have lost the presidential election? One- Dole, and that was because he ran a horrendous campaign (and because Perot siphoned some of the vote). If Dole had run a good campaign I think he wins. McCain was never a real conservative.
McGovern was a lib. HUmphrey was a lib. Ford was not a conservative. Neither was Bush senior (the Perot factor really hurt him). Gore and Kerry were libs. Obama was the one real liberal who got elected and we all know why.

why ?

[bbgun]

Correct, moderates were no more conservative in 1980 than they are today. And Reagan, the most right-wing candidate to run and win in the last 50 years, did not "move to the center," "moderate his views," or "compromise his core philosophy" in order to win them over. A lesson that McCain and his fellow RINOs never fully digested.

[Temo]

Correct, moderates were no more conservative in 1980 than they are today. And Reagan, the most right-wing candidate to run and win in the last 50 years, did not "move to the center," "moderate his views," or "compromise his core philosophy" in order to win them over. A lesson that McCain and his fellow RINOs never fully digested.

Was Reagan more right-wing than Bush II? It doesn't seem so to me.

[bbgun]

Was Reagan more right-wing than Bush II? It doesn't seem so to me.

Um, Dutch never campaigned as a "compassionate conservative." The Bushes have always been country club, Rockefeller Republicans at best. Nor were they big on cultural conservative issues.

[ScipioCowboy]

Was Reagan more right-wing than Bush II? It doesn't seem so to me.

It depends largely on your definition of right-wing.

[ScipioCowboy]

There's already been a thread where we argued this. Reagan was able to pull together more moderates (swing voters) than Mondale.

In your opinion, how was Reagan able to bring in moderates?

[DIAF]

Simple; by playing up things that everyone likes like tax cuts, strong national defense (remember this was the Cold War) and not harping on social issues like abortion, homosexuality, and other culture war issues that tend to piss more moderate folks off. Reagan's charisma was another factor, undecideds tend to gravitate more towards the more charismatic candidate. Basically, Reagan didn't give moderates a reason NOT to like him. Sure, he was conservative, but he didn't treat them with disdain and talked about things that they had in common, unlike the current conservatives in the Republican party who seem more than eager to constantly remind moderates how different and how unwanted they are. I think nowadays this is a lot harder to pull off since the two parties have drifted further apart in idealogy than they were 20-30 years ago. It's not as easy to appeal to larger swaths of voters. The middle has grown.

[ScipioCowboy]

Simple; by playing up things that everyone likes like tax cuts, strong national defense (remember this was the Cold War) and not harping on social issues like abortion, homosexuality, and other culture war issues that tend to piss more moderate folks off.

Interesting theory.

However, in 1983, President Reagan wrote an article that addressed the abortion issue. In the article, he expressed unequivocal support for the pro-life movement, and compared Roe vs. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision.

As a pro-lifer, Reagan was far more stalwart than John McCain ever was.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

And Reagan's views on homosexuality were far more traditional than McCain's.

You made an excellent point about Reagan's charisma. Perhaps it allowed moderates to look past beliefs and stances to which they would normally be opposed.

[DIAF]

Interesting theory.

However, in 1983, President Reagan wrote an article that addressed the abortion issue. In the article, he expressed unequivocal support for the pro-life movement, and compared Roe vs. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision.

As a pro-lifer, Reagan was far more stalwart than John McCain ever was.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

And Reagan's views on homosexuality were far more traditional than McCain's.

You made an excellent point about Reagan's charisma. Perhaps it allowed moderates to look past beliefs and stances to which they would normally be opposed.

Reagan wasn't a pro-life crusader, though. You didn't see him addressing right-to-life groups or really actively pursuing measures to limit or overturn Roe v Wade despite his opposition. Or at the very least he didn't beat it into the ground. Same with homosexuality. There was no Defense of Marriage act. Reagan supposedly opposed a California ballot measure when he was Governor to bar homosexuals from teaching in schools. The main reason why homosexuals to this day despise Reagan is because he did virtually nothing on AIDS, but hell back then nobody really knew crap about it.

I don't know about back then, but now Moderates are seemingly divided from Conservative by mainly social ideals. Nearly everyone likes being taxed less. Nearly everyone will tell you that government should not spend as much money. However, a lot of people get angry when you tell them they are denied certain benefits because the one they love is someone of the same sex. They don't like it when you tell them their morality is wrong, and yours is right because someone says a book says so. They don't like it when the State intrudes unnecessarily into your life. They don't like it when the lines between church and state are blurred. It's these sorts of social issues that REALLY get people hot.

[trickblue]

Simple; by playing up things that everyone likes like tax cuts, strong national defense (remember this was the Cold War) and not harping on social issues like abortion, homosexuality, and other culture war issues that tend to piss more moderate folks off. Reagan's charisma was another factor, undecideds tend to gravitate more towards the more charismatic candidate. Basically, Reagan didn't give moderates a reason NOT to like him. Sure, he was conservative, but he didn't treat them with disdain and talked about things that they had in common, unlike the current conservatives in the Republican party who seem more than eager to constantly remind moderates how different and how unwanted they are. I think nowadays this is a lot harder to pull off since the two parties have drifted further apart in idealogy than they were 20-30 years ago. It's not as easy to appeal to larger swaths of voters. The middle has grown.

It's funny... you always espouse a move to the center for the GOP... it's what you've had for the last eight... and McCain is the poster child of moderates...

Voters didn't respond and now you want even more moderate Republicans?

Reagan was a big supporter of gay rights... btw...

I am too short of Gay marriage...

[DIAF]

It's funny... you always espouse a move to the center for the GOP... it's what you've had for the last eight... and McCain is the poster child of moderates...

Voters didn't respond and now you want even more moderate Republicans?

Reagan was a big supporter of gay rights... btw...

I am too short of Gay marriage...


Yes, because you have to change with the climate in order to stay relevant (in this case, relevancy means being competitive). Adapt and survive. Moderates running from you in droves? Unless you have a machine to create new conservatives, you gotta get them back somehow and that means giving them enough to bring them back in. Chances are you share some similarities with them in the first place, so do enough to get them back over to your side. Or at least do a good job tricking them into voting for you. As i've said before, you can harp about ideology and principle all day, but if you don't compromise a little, you aren't going to get much chance to put that ideology into practice. It's simple really. What your parents taught you when you were a kid about sharing and compromise, well, it applies to your principles as well as much as you don't want to hear or believe that.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Regarless what the party thinks or her critics Palin polls well with republican voters I think the party is making a mistake by not having her at this fund raiser


I'm all for a strong Republican candidate. But she's not strong enough, she's not qualified and, above all, she's not credible enough to warrant another nomination.

She's over. If America would get over the beauty queen/actress/Ronald Reagan types as an ideal, we'd start seeing more qualified representatives with substance rather than these non-substantive, Sarah Palin's who just campaign with that hoo-rah, get 'em tigers and get that job blow! It's counterproductive, yet America gets high on it like heroine. First they think they have control of what is going on, then when the real Sarah Palin reveals herself it's a nightmare, and there is no jumping ship or cycle of what we think the image of Sarah Palin ought to be, not what she is. . At least, not until the hangover and the withdrawals from the compulsion to see her as what she ought to be subside and we return to reality.

[ScipioCowboy]

Reagan wasn't a pro-life crusader, though. You didn't see him addressing right-to-life groups or really actively pursuing measures to limit or overturn Roe v Wade despite his opposition.

Actually, Ronald Reagan did address pro-life groups. In fact, his "Evil Empire" speech was made to the National Association of Evangelicals. In the speech, he not only denounced the Soviet Union but also promoted right to life.

Additionally, Reagan spoke to the National Religious Broadcasters organization, and advanced pro life causes.

Reagan did more to advocate right to life than any subsequent Republican president or presidential candidate that I can remember.

do0x-Egc6oA&feature=related

Qy5YldZ1iaY


Or at the very least he didn't beat it into the ground. Same with homosexuality. There was no Defense of Marriage act. Reagan supposedly opposed a California ballot measure when he was Governor to bar homosexuals from teaching in schools. The main reason why homosexuals to this day despise Reagan is because he did virtually nothing on AIDS, but hell back then nobody really knew crap about it.We must remember that gay marriage and gay enlistment in the military were not integral issues in the 1980s -- at least not to the extent they are today.

In my opinion, if Reagan were still alive, he would take the Ron Paul position on gay marriage, which is that the decision to allow should rest with the states. Like you, I doubt he would support a constitutional amendment banning it.

I don't know about back then, but now Moderates are seemingly divided from Conservative by mainly social ideals. Nearly everyone likes being taxed less. Nearly everyone will tell you that government should not spend as much money. However, a lot of people get angry when you tell them they are denied certain benefits because the one they love is someone of the same sex. They don't like it when you tell them their morality is wrong, and yours is right because someone says a book says so. They don't like it when the State intrudes unnecessarily into your life. They don't like it when the lines between church and state are blurred. It's these sorts of social issues that REALLY get people hot.The line between church and state is no more blurred now than it's ever been.

[trickblue]

Yes, because you have to change with the climate in order to stay relevant (in this case, relevancy means being competitive). Adapt and survive. Moderates running from you in droves? Unless you have a machine to create new conservatives, you gotta get them back somehow and that means giving them enough to bring them back in. Chances are you share some similarities with them in the first place, so do enough to get them back over to your side. Or at least do a good job tricking them into voting for you. As i've said before, you can harp about ideology and principle all day, but if you don't compromise a little, you aren't going to get much chance to put that ideology into practice. It's simple really. What your parents taught you when you were a kid about sharing and compromise, well, it applies to your principles as well as much as you don't want to hear or believe that.

But if the climate was truly moderate, McCain would have dominated...

Reagan is still relevant... to this day. Adapt and survive sounds great, but the left has you slowly adapt to their side...

You see... they DON'T give... they DON'T compromise...

I've lived a life of compromise in the name of getting along... but I'm always asked for more once I comply...

It's funny how compromise on my side involves core principles while that is never approached from the left...

Methinks you are being duped as they have no compromise in mind in the end... it's their way or the highway...

I realize it all sounds good, but only one side is giving anything...

Us Conservatives just want a little piece of the pie the country was founded on...

[DIAF]

But if the climate was truly moderate, McCain would have dominated...

Reagan is still relevant... to this day. Adapt and survive sounds great, but the left has you slowly adapt to their side...

You see... they DON'T give... they DON'T compromise...

I've lived a life of compromise in the name of getting along... but I'm always asked for more once I comply...

It's funny how compromise on my side involves core principles while that is never approached from the left...

Methinks you are being duped as they have no compromise in mind in the end... it's their way or the highway...

I realize it all sounds good, but only one side is giving anything...

Us Conservatives just want a little piece of the pie the country was founded on...

Just look at the progressives. Right now, they are feeling the same way you do. They feel like they voted Obama in and are now being marginalized as he continues to continue a good chunk of what they expected he would reverse from the Bush Administration. They feel like they are being ignored. They feel like they are being railroaded. That the compromise is moving right and their core values are being given away.

Everyone feels like they are being screwed. Everyone feels as if they are being slighted. Like the old saying goes "You can't make everyone happy all of the time..." That's true. You can't. However, you CAN make a lot of them at least moderately satisfied enough to not toss you out on your ear in 4 years.

Eventually the pendulum will swing back. Something will happen to cause the electorate to start losing faith in the Democrats, just like Iraq/Economy/etc. was the undoing of the republicans here in the 00s. And the Republican party damn well better prepare for it. Look at the democrats in 04. They had what was probably the most beatable sitting president in ages, and they blew it. Expand the base and take advantage.

[trickblue]

Just look at the progressives. Right now, they are feeling the same way you do. They feel like they voted Obama in and are now being marginalized as he continues to continue a good chunk of what they expected he would reverse from the Bush Administration. They feel like they are being ignored. They feel like they are being railroaded. That the compromise is moving right and their core values are being given away.

Everyone feels like they are being screwed. Everyone feels as if they are being slighted. Like the old saying goes "You can't make everyone happy all of the time..." That's true. You can't. However, you CAN make a lot of them at least moderately satisfied enough to not toss you out on your ear in 4 years.

But I have no problem if they toss me out after four years if I don't sacrifice core principle...

Toss me out if I'm not getting the job done... that's what elections are all about...

Appeasing the masses for re-election is the biggest thing wrong with this country... no one takes a stand. It's the typical muckety-muck of these *******s wanting to get re-elected and getting rich at our expense...

I have no problem with moderates and I have no problem with liberals in that respect, but don't blame the Conservatives as the last balanced budget we had was under the Conservatives...

The problem is the moderates, like Gen. Powell are saying we aren't moderate enough. He could not have asked for a more moderate candidate than McCain, but yet he voted Obama... I find him very hypocritical in that respect. A Conservative candidate would have done no worse...

The bottom line is that this country is still split as we have no core leadership. Washington was right in opposing a two party system as it it tearing this country apart...

[CowboyMcCoy]

But if the climate was truly moderate, McCain would have dominated...

It was obvious McCain had more of a likelihood to continue the war machine and war-profiteering like Bush, yet Obama is even doing it and I'm ashamed I voted for him.

Reagan is still relevant... to this day. Adapt and survive sounds great, but the left has you slowly adapt to their side...Reagan was unique enough in his own right. If anything he was a good man who made some bad and good decisions. . . .

You see... they DON'T give... they DON'T compromise...Objection, broad generalization.

I've lived a life of compromise in the name of getting along... but I'm always asked for more once I comply...You seem to have some resentment. You want the recognition of having sacrificed, as says the old doctrinaire. Yet you whine about it. I thought us libs were the whiners.

It's funny how compromise on my side involves core principles while that is never approached from the left...What you are saying is a logical fallacy. Principles are generalities, but even more generalities rules of such principles, even tho more particularized, are still to general to apply to all concrete cases. Yet even to say the left, or right or independent don't act along "principles" is absurd. Maybe they're not YOUR principles, but they are principles none-the-less

Methinks you are being duped as they have no compromise in mind in the end... it's their way or the highway...Me thinks you don't see the loyalty between both parties to dupe the public as if there is some real divisiveness between the dems and the GOP. It's set up to be an illusion, for the public to be contempt, yet you're the first to whine about correct principle. The system is flawed, and it's unfair. That's the core beginning. That's where reform begins, and it stops with blame.

I realize it all sounds good, but only one side is giving anything...One side gave us this fluff of a war, with gas prices rising, recessions ensuing. It's all a game to say it's one side or the other. It's our WHOLE government that did this, no one side is to blame. That's what's wrong with BOTH sides today. I'm just sick enough of mine and the results from this past few years, that I'm able to admit my side is part of it. But it lies far from the entire blame.

Us Conservatives just want a little piece of the pie the country was founded on...As does every other group or party that exists on the political scene today. Wouldn't you say? I'd say the corporate corruption is to blame, so the new conservative party has just as much to do with it as the Democrats.

[trickblue]

It was obvious McCain had more of a likelihood to continue the war machine and war-profiteering like Bush, yet Obama is even doing it and I'm ashamed I voted for him.

That's why I voted third party... I would be ashamed to vote for either of them...

Reagan was unique enough in his own right. If anything he was a good man who made some bad and good decisions. . . .

I agree...

Objection, broad generalization.

I see little flexibility from the left...

You seem to have some resentment. You want the recognition of having sacrificed, as says the old doctrinaire. Yet you whine about it. I thought us libs were the whiners.

Only in the respect that when I play ball, they change the rules...

Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me...

What you are saying is a logical fallacy. Principles are generalities, but even more generalities rules of such principles, even tho more particularized, are still to general to apply to all concrete cases. Yet even to say the left, or right or independent don't act along "principles" is absurd. Maybe they're not YOUR principles, but they are principles none-the-less

But core principles are what this country was founded on... they aren't a fallacy, they are very concrete and spelled out in the Constitution...

Me thinks you don't see the loyalty between both parties to dupe the public as if there is some real divisiveness between the dems and the GOP. It's set up to be an illusion, for the public to be contempt, yet you're the first to whine about correct principle. The system is flawed, and it's unfair. That's the core beginning. That's where reform begins, and it stops with blame.

Oh I see the loyalty... I just despise it...

One side gave us this fluff of a war, with gas prices rising, recessions ensuing. It's all a game to say it's one side or the other. It's our WHOLE government that did this, no one side is to blame. That's what's wrong with BOTH sides today. I'm just sick enough of mine and the results from this past few years, that I'm able to admit my side is part of it. But it lies far from the entire blame.

Yep... and don't look for a change anytime soon... I am hopeful in 2010, but not too hopeful...

As does every other group or party that exists on the political scene today. Wouldn't you say? I'd say the corporate corruption is to blame, so the new conservative party has just as much to do with the Democrats.

Not really... the politicians are the ones that are corrupt... they take the money and run... then the sheople re-elect them...

We really get what we deserve...

These idiots go into congress worth 150k then exit worth millions... yet no one sees the problem...

[burmafrd]

Watching Cowboy trying to defend is always enjoyable. Its like watching a 4 week old puppy trying to chase its tail.

[Doomsday101]

I'm all for a strong Republican candidate. But she's not strong enough, she's not qualified and, above all, she's not credible enough to warrant another nomination.

She's over. If America would get over the beauty queen/actress/Ronald Reagan types as an ideal, we'd start seeing more qualified representatives with substance rather than these non-substantive, Sarah Palin's who just campaign with that hoo-rah, get 'em tigers and get that job blow! It's counterproductive, yet America gets high on it like heroine. First they think they have control of what is going on, then when the real Sarah Palin reveals herself it's a nightmare, and there is no jumping ship or cycle of what we think the image of Sarah Palin ought to be, not what she is. . At least, not until the hangover and the withdrawals from the compulsion to see her as what she ought to be subside and we return to reality.

I disagree she has governed both as a mayor and as a Governor. I would like to see her on campaign for herself instead of having handlers like she did when she was on the McCain ticket. She clearly had more experience than Obama who served half a term as a senator and before that a community organizer? Please it is a joke how the media never talked of the fact Obama had almost 0 experience. The media wants to make jokes about Palin while playing hands off on Obama fine I think she is very capable of overcoming a biased media and going straight to the voters

[Hoofbite]

You put your SP in, you put your SP out, you put your SP in and you shake it all about.