Sarah Palin, too weird.

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
I was a bit shocked to see Pat Buchanon say on MSNBC that Palin would easily win the Republican nomination for president should she seek it.

Clearly there are enough people to make that happen. Very recent history tells us that. The Mirror could just recycle their old front page, "How can __ million people be so dumb?", theoretically, four times.

In my opinion, if the Republicans continually put a woman as the Presidential candidate, it would just be a matter of time that the Democrats would have to also put up a woman candidate, and then a woman would be President. However, I would guess that a Republican woman candidate would win over a Democrat woman candidate, since many women voters, after the current high unemployment, would hope that a woman Republican candidate would be able to motivate the economy to have more employment. So, I believe women would believe that a woman Republican President would be attuned to their concerns as women about employment for them and their kin.

Also, the abortion issue may become less problematic as a high court rules on a new criterion for timing an abortion, relative to the trimester, since the newest technology in incubators is making premature infants viable at an earlier and earlier point. The Democrats may then have one less issue to rally around.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I was a bit shocked to see Pat Buchanon say on MSNBC that Palin would easily win the Republican nomination for president should she seek it. I wonder whether the Reps on this thread agree with this assessment, and whether they would vote for her in the primary.

Pat Buchanan unfortunately has lost all of his screws. These essential screws were loose before, but now they're gone!

Take a look at his most recent column:

How to Handle Sonia
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32699

Railing against the Democrats, Buchanan wrote:

"They archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described "affirmative action baby" from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin."

Well, Palin isn't from Idaho, she's from Alaska. And many, many Republicans and conservatives joined with others in expressing the view that Palin was an intellectual lightweight. Judge Sotomayor clearly beats Sarah Palin in the brains department. (Given the fact that Sonia Sotomayor is a Catholic, she may be just as "pro-life" as Sarah Palin, but Judge Sotomayor understands that her personal views cannot trump the law.)

According to Buchanan, the GOP needs to go after the WHITE conservative vote:

"These are the folks whose jobs have been outsourced to China and Asia, who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. These are the folks who want the borders secured and the illegals sent back."

Wow. According to Buchanan, the WHITE people are suffering and it's the fault of Hispanics!

The rest of Buchanan's article encourages the GOP to rip Judge Sotomayor to shreds because who gives a damn about the Hispanic vote anyway? Buchanan makes it very clear that their numbers are not sufficient to alter any election and that their very presence in America hurts WHITE people (white males, in particular). According to Buchanan, they are rapers, robbers, and murderers.

Buchanan calls Sotomayor a militant racist, but if he had a few screws left, he would be able to look in a mirror and know that he was looking at a true racist.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

I think Maddow is going to have Uncle Pat on tonight to talk about that column. There appears to be a sincere fondness between the two of them but she ain't no shrinking violet and she's smarter than he is...ought to be interesting.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

I just read somewhere that Palin was born in Idaho. That was in the context of a column about 'where can she go now?'.

That's one thing I am doubting that Buchanan is daft about, though I'll grant daft as a generalization about him.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

The family moved to Alaska when she was an infant.

I'd say that he's pretty much daft on most everything and misleading on the rest.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I think Maddow is going to have Uncle Pat on tonight to talk about that column. There appears to be a sincere fondness between the two of them but she ain't no shrinking violet and she's smarter than he is...ought to be interesting.

I plan on catching the show.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I just read somewhere that Palin was born in Idaho. That was in the context of a column about 'where can she go now?'.

That's one thing I am doubting that Buchanan is daft about, though I'll grant daft as a generalization about him.

Yes. Sarah Palin was born in Idaho. Her family moved to Alaska when she was an infant.

In the context of the column entitled "How to Handle Sonia", Buchanan wrote: "[Democrats] archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described 'affirmative action baby' from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin."

Palin was an infant child born in Idaho and moved to Alaska as an infant, but as a pro-life conservative mother of five, she is from Alaska.

It is ironic that he rails about affording her respect, but he doesn't even bother to get the facts straight when he writes about her. Palin is the governor of Alaska (at least until the end of the month), and that fact was pounded into our collective consciousness since she was nominated to be McCain's running mate. The fact that he described her as a mother of five from IDAHO simply demonstrates how little thought he puts into his conservative screeds. His columns are disturbing and creepy and reminiscent of the age of the KKK.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

He suggested to Nixon to label Democratic opponent George McGovern as an extremist and burn the White House tapes.[10]

Buchanan remained as a special assistant to the president through the final days of the Watergate Scandal. He was not accused of wrongdoing, though some mistakenly suspected him as Deep Throat. When the actual identity of the press leak was revealed as FBI Associate Director Mark Felt in 2005, Buchanan called him "sneaky," "dishonest," and "criminal."[12] Due to his role in the Nixon campaign's "Attack Group," Buchanan appeared before the Senate Watergate Committee on September 26, 1973. He told the panel:
“ The mandate that the American people gave to this president and his administration cannot and will not be frustrated or repealed or overthrown as a consequence of the incumbent tragedy.[10] ”

Buchanan remarked about Watergate:
“ The lost opportunity to move against the political forces frustrating the expressed national will ... To effect a political counterrevolution in the capital
" ... there is no substitute for a principled and dedicated man of the Right in the Oval Office.[10]

Is it always the "expressed national will" to support presidents who commit felonies, to support presidents who lie and think it politic to gather criminals around them to do their dirty work, to spy on citizens, to try to destroy citizens.

Why does a large proportion of the "national will" seem so ready to embrace these recycled felons, setting them up as speakers for their "just cause"?

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Why does a large proportion of the "national will" seem so ready to embrace these recycled felons, setting them up as speakers for their "just cause"?

It's what Obama wants.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

I have a long time friend who will always remain so for reasons having to do with old history, who as far as I'm concerned became a pod (what was that old movie? was it The Blob? something about Body Snatchers?) and likes Buchanan. Luckily we have a few other things to talk about.

Anyway, I take your point about "from".

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That's not an original idea, h2man. That's simply more prevarication bordering on lies, which seems to be your stock in trade. You are, after all, of the conservative/Republican bent.

If and when you ever come up with an original idea, I'm sure that someone will start a new thread and people will line up to congratulate you.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You are, after all, of the conservative/Republican bent.

jj, you are once again guilty of spreading false information.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Am I? Who did you vote for for prez in 2000 and 2004?

I see that you don't dispute the rest. Small wonder.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I was hoping you would make a point, or contribute something interesting... you let me
down because your rambling babble is not worth anyone's time. You are a pathetic failure.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

I was hoping you would make a point, or contribute something interesting... you let me
down because your rambling babble is not worth anyone's time. You are a pathetic failure.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Slither away fuckwit. NOBODY cares about anything that dribbles out of you.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I have a long time friend who will always remain so for reasons having to do with old history, who as far as I'm concerned became a pod (what was that old movie? was it The Blob? something about Body Snatchers?) and likes Buchanan. Luckily we have a few other things to talk about.

Anyway, I take your point about "from".

I know far too many people who are very much like Buchanan. They are so angry and "bitch" that our civil rights laws aren't necessary anymore, but they make these angry claims while they're railing against minorities for one spurious reason or another. It's obvious to me because of this anger, irrational resentment, and unwillingness to accept minorities as equals that our civil rights laws are still necessary.

I agree that we can't shut all these people out of our lives, so it's enough for me to say I disagree and move on to another subject.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

I would like to hear h2oman tell us who he voted for prez in 2000 and 2004, Wilso. It might help in determining if he is prevaricating or out and out lying.

h2oman, you have the floor.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Wilso, you and other inbred, red neck, limp dick liberals are seriously lacking common
sense and you don't have the ability to live another day without government support.

You have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation so you make a feeble attempt
at a personal attack. You are a pathetic failure in life and must rely on the government to
redistribute other peoples earnings to you so that you can continue your meager existence.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
He suggested to Nixon to label Democratic opponent George McGovern as an extremist and burn the White House tapes.[10]

Buchanan remained as a special assistant to the president through the final days of the Watergate Scandal. He was not accused of wrongdoing, though some mistakenly suspected him as Deep Throat. When the actual identity of the press leak was revealed as FBI Associate Director Mark Felt in 2005, Buchanan called him "sneaky," "dishonest," and "criminal."[12] Due to his role in the Nixon campaign's "Attack Group," Buchanan appeared before the Senate Watergate Committee on September 26, 1973. He told the panel:
“ The mandate that the American people gave to this president and his administration cannot and will not be frustrated or repealed or overthrown as a consequence of the incumbent tragedy.[10] ”

Buchanan remarked about Watergate:
“ The lost opportunity to move against the political forces frustrating the expressed national will ... To effect a political counterrevolution in the capital
" ... there is no substitute for a principled and dedicated man of the Right in the Oval Office.[10]

Is it always the "expressed national will" to support presidents who commit felonies, to support presidents who lie and think it politic to gather criminals around them to do their dirty work, to spy on citizens, to try to destroy citizens.

Why does a large proportion of the "national will" seem so ready to embrace these recycled felons, setting them up as speakers for their "just cause"?

The Buchanans of the world have frightening "principles". They violently and vehemently oppose anything other than having a conservative RIGHT-wing MAN in the oval office. In Buchanan's own words, there is "no substitute". (Edit: No substitute unless its a pro-life mother of five from IDAHO, LOL.)

The only bright side to that cloud is that the bigoted, narrow-minded persons who reside in his generation will soon be dead and gone. I think (or hope) there are less of them with each new generation.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

, you and other inbred, red neck, limp dick liberals are seriously lacking common sense and you don't have the ability to live another day without government support.

Nope, that's not an original idea, h2oman.

1 Reply

Sarah Palin, too weird.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know