Sarah Palin in 2012?
November 12, 2008 - 11:31am
by kat
New sources are now coming out with articles dicussing Palin's contemplation of running for presidency in 2012.
"I’m like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. And if there is an open door in (2012) or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plow through that door," stated Palin.
She has not officially announced her candidacy, however it looks as though things may go that way.
Conerns? Excitement?
Delicious
Digg it
Stumble it
Reddit
Share on Facebook
Subscribe to comments- kat's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Comments
I think it would be interesting to see how far she could get in 2012 after everything everyone said about her
Great back and forth, wow. Party bashing aside, Sarah Palin is not the right person to run this country. Not in 2012, 2016, 2020 or at any other time down the road.
She seems like a wonderful, good hearted woman. In fact, my respect for her increased after he apearance on SNL. Seeing her laugh at herself was great. Anyone that can laugh at him/herself is okay in my book.
President though! Come on, Mr. S. If you search deep inside yourself you can admit that she's not the right woman for the job.
Did any of you catch the prank call she took from a Canadian radio station? She really thought it was the French Prsident!
Mr. S, Katrina wasn't the responsibility of the Mayor and Gov. They call it a national disaster for a reason. My guess is because national support is needed. Mr. Bush didn't do a great job coming to the aid that community. And it doesn't look good when you factor in the ethnicity and socio economic status of those hurt the most.
true, although the mayor's plan didn't account for people who didn't have cars and that is a major design flaw. But the fact that the president was eating cake and celebrating the senator's birthday (John McCain, who later would criticize the president for not being on the ground, as he claims he would have been) while all of that was going on isn't a good sign that he was super concerned.
And then later he goes off and says something to the effect of "I wasn't truly informed" and then, a tape surfaced where they were actualy informing him.
And THEN we have all this retoric against their communities comments to the effect of "It was a bad community anyway" stiring racial tensions.
I am personally of the belief that it is a classism issue rather then a racial one, but the facts are there Mr. S, had there been a natural disaster up here (earthquake, tsunami) I would be worried about the president's ability to take care of my family.
I think there was an error because my comment posted twice.
I just need to take a step back here, because Mr S you said something that really confused me and has NOTHING to do with running for political office. You said that if Palin does not end up being the pick for the Republican candidate in 2012 than maybe the LA governor Bobby Jindal will run. But after you mention this fact, you complete you argument with the fact that Jindal is an "Indian convert to Catholicism". There are so many things wrong, not to mention degrading, to that sentence. First of all, Indian is an ethnicity, whereas Catholicism is a religion. You cannot convert from the ethnicity you were born, and to assume that people would not want someone who is of that nationality to be their leader is offensive to Indians. What's wrong with having an Indian heritage? And if your assuming this person was Hindu (the majority religion in India) or maybe Sikh, or Buddhist, or even Christian - what's wrong with any of the above?
Confused is right. I am not sure exactly what you are trying to do here, but I simply stated the fact that Jindal's heritage is Indian and he has converted to Catholicism. What he converted from, I have no idea nor do I care. I merely mentioned those things because I figured that 99% of people here have probably never heard of Jindal.
How you got the idea that I think his ethnicity is a BAD thing is beyond me.
Just to clarify, Obama has no terrorist connections. He is not a terrorist, was not a terrorist. He knew a reformed protestor. He is not muslim, but Christian (remember the reverand?)
And although I do respect your cases Mr.S and your input (especially since you keep it civil, thank you)I would like to remind you of how many newspapers and republican media sources that campaigned for bush I and bush II both terms switched to campaign for Obama because they felt that Palin was such a weak candidate.
Obama has deep connections with Ayers, a NON-REFORMED terrorist who wishes he had bombed more (he said this in an article published on 9-11-01 before the attacks). He also has connections with people that worked for the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) which is on the US terror list. This man does not support Israel and will do everything he can to appease Iran and other Islamic terror states just like Carter did.
About Bush, you need to keep in mind that Bush and McCain hate eachother. The Bush campaign in 2000 supposedly ran ads saying that McCain had a illegitimate black love child which turned out to be his adopted daughter of Indian decent.
Palin has nothing to do with it, every conservative that I know loves her. She is not a phony, she is real, she says what she means and she lives what she believes. But if she is not the pick, there are other conservatives like LA governor Bobby Jindal who is an Indian convert to Catholicism.
Maybe you should read the new interviews Ayers has done- stating he has no personal relations with Obama. He said he knew him on the same level most citizens of Chicago know him, not a "friend" level.
Ayers has since called Obama a "family friend". I guess he was lying about the "no personal relationship" thing.
It will be nice to have an actual conservative running and not a lukewarm version of what the democrats offer. Every time the republicans do this, they lose. When they run a conservative (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) they win. Bush I was hurt by his reneging on his "read my lips" promise, a decidedly un-conservative tax hike.
I think that you republicans learned the wrong thing from this election. If your party goes farther right, it will be going off a cliff
That does not jive with reality. For one, McCain is a softcore liberal RINO and always has been. Second, the deeply blue state of California affirmed the conservative principle of the traditional definition of marriage. Conservatism still lives, so long as people revere democracy, freedom, and liberty. So to say that the Republicans will be committing suicide by becoming more conservative is silly. Especially with a democrat party that is far enough left that shades of Marxism are appearing.
The pendulum has swung so far left, it is only a matter of time that it swings equally far to the right. Just as Carter led to Reagan, Obama will lead to a small government conservative.
I would like to see a good debate between left and right, so in that sense I am disapointed, on the other hand, I would like to see the complete and total destruction of the Republican party, and it seems like Palin is a step in that direction.
Oh do not worry, as soon as Obama reveals himself as a Jimmy Carter clone (Destructive to the economy, appeaser of islamic terrorists) the Republicans will come back stronger than they have been in a long time. Like it or not, the next 4 years are going to be rough.
dude, the last 8 years have been rough, and what is out there to suggest that Obama has terrorist connections? Can you give me a credible source?
How much of the last 8 years do you even remember? How old were you on 9-11?
The last 8 years have not been tough, they have been good. We had constant economic growth and a historically low unemployment rate for most of Bush's presidency. It was not until the democrats took congress and destroyed the mortgage business that things have gone south.
If you think the last 8 years have been tough, you are about to be hit by a freight train sized let down.
We'll see, this argument is getting nowhere as usual. But I will answer your questions.
On the date of 9-11. 2001 I was 7 years old, I was scared by iteven though I know I didn't fully grasp it's meaning, (although I don't know if anybody can) but, that does not deprive me of the priveledge of taking a retrospective look back. Of the last 8 years I remember political things dating back to when I was 11 or 12. Politics is a common topic at my house, and I pride myself on exploring my own ideas, rather then always agreeing with my parents.
If you want to argue issues, I am one person who has in the past and will in the future consider your ideas, but you're losing me with all this stuff about how Obama is such a bad guy and he's a bad person, not just an incorrect politician. Are you scared of the guy? if so, tell me what is so harmful and give me specifics not just try to associate him with things that will scare me.
Ok, lets think here. There is a ban on stem cell research, that could be used to cure cancer. We entered into a war in Iraq under the assumption that there were weapons of mass destruction. The UN said there were none in Iraq, yet the Bush administration ignored the UN. Then we had the Abolition of the Pay-go rules through a republican congress. So now instead of paying for government programs and military equipment, we are allowed to run up a deficit. Then lets see... there was hurricane Katrina after Bush took all power out of FEMA or any other national disaster relief government agency. Then durring that emergency the Bush administration told the UK to return home when they were trying to provide hurricane relief. And I could go on about this one too. Then there was an SCHIP bill for children to recieve healthcare which would cost 35 billion over the next five years. This was vetoed, and then the administration requested an extra 90 billion dollars to fund his war. I've watched gas companies profits rise, while their prices increase. I've seen their tax cuts as well. And this is what comes to mind off the top of my head. Oh, and don't even make me go into the Patriot Act.
You list a lot of things, but yet you cannot deny the fact that the economy has been generally good up until about 6-12 months ago. But I will still refute pretty much everything you said
1) Embryonic stem cell research has shown ZERO, ZERO, possibility of curing anything. In fact it has resulted in only causing cancer. However, cord blood, adult stem cells, and a few other forms have shown actual results. So why waste tax payer money on something that does not work when it is controversial and involves the destruction of life?
2) Some 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium were removed THIS YEAR from Iraq. Every intelligence agency agreed that Saddam was dangerous and had or wanted weapons. The Clintons agree, Al gore agreed, John Kerry agreed. Everyone agreed. Besides, the war is a success and there is a blossoming democracy in the Middle East. Far better than the evil Saddam Hussein.
3) Pay-go was a demcrat idea and even they have not been following it even though they promised to do so. But come on, our military needed the money, it is better than wasting it on some useless social program.
4) Katrina is another disaster that can be put squarely on the Democrat mayor of New Orleans and the Democrat governor of Louisiana. They did nothing while New Orleans sank, nothing.
5) SCHIP expansion was a scam, the Democrats wanted to up the age to 25 and play it off as if the Republicans were denying infants healthcare. (Which is funny because it was Obama that voted to do that.) Remind me again why 25 year olds need to be classified as "children"?
6) Gas prices rose during the Democrat congress while they sat on their thumbs and refused to do anything about it. And trust me, raising taxes on oil companies IS NOT going to lower the price for the consumer. Corporations don't pay taxes, you and I and the rest of us do.
Yet with all these "horrible things" which is mostly either nonsense or policy disagreements, we still had low unemployment, strong economic growth, and a booming stock market.
I was just reading this over, you said that stem cell research shows no possibility of ever working, and that can't go un-answered.
This is a revolutionary breakthrough in modern science in which we have found a way to create any kind of tissue in the body, and it has worked! On mice and other types or labratory tests. How can you say that it shows no sign of possibly curing anything when it clearly has.
And you said the war was a success? for who? we went in and got rid of a bad guy yes, but at what cost? many innocent lives and tons of money is poured into it. And declaring victory in Iraq in front of a giant banner is one of the things George Bush now says is one of his greatest presidental regrets.
You misunderstood me on the stem cell thing. Embryonic stem cells have shown zero results, ZERO. Stem cells from cord blood, adult stem cells, and a few others I cannot think of off the top of my head have been used to successfully cure diseases and injuries among other things. So the issue is not about whether stem cell research is "banned" because its not, research on cord blood has made great progress in recent years. The fact is that some people want GOVERNMENT MONEY to fund embryonic stem cell research which has no proven results, while the research on non-embryonic stem cells has shown results yet does not require government money to fund it.
Its simply common sense, if embryonic stem cells were going to cure all of our ills, investors would be lining up for miles to hand over their money so that they could reap the benefits. Theres nothing stopping this from happening, except for the fact that embryonic stem cells are going nowhere fast.
the reason everyone is not lined up is because you dis believe in the moral issue, not the potential, people will invest in anything, but people dont want to be seen as funding something imorral
Like I explained, it is because people do not want to invest in something that will never give them a return. So why invest in that when you can invest in stem cell research that has shown results?
The fact is, embryonic stem cells are entirely pointless and a complete waste of time and resources. We have viable alternatives, we should use them.