Palin is making some pretty big moves recently (including a big bus tour), which suggest that she'll be running. That is...an unfortunate development. She's not qualified, but many people in the older generations see her as the best candidate.

5/26/2011 5:42:24 PM

She is incredibly unpopular with independents and I'd think unable to get any swing democratic votes. It goes without saying that college shitheads hate her too, but maybe they'll have lost the hype of Obama and not vote again.

A lot of this seems very early and based solely on name recognition. I hope the polls rebalance towards a more social liberal candidate once people start hearing issues.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM. Reason : i do not support palin fwiw]

5/26/2011 5:54:13 PM

Yeah, she'd lose the general election. I'm worried that she could win the GOP nomination, which would be a real bummer.

A guy named Adam Kokesh (I suggest looking into him, his RT show is pretty good) recently said that the GOP will be destroyed if they alienate the libertarian wing, and I tend to agree. The upcoming generation is very motivated and very socially liberal. The foreign policy of the past isn't going to fly, the big spending isn't going to fly - the GOP/FoxNation stands to shoot themselves in the foot this cycle, if they aren't careful.

You have to wonder, though. Would a Sean Hannity vote for Ron Paul or Barack Obama? One would continue his precious crusades, the other would end them (which presumably means "defeat" for someone like Hannity). That would be an interesting scenario.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2011 6:02:44 PM

Quote :

"She's not qualified, but many people in the older generations see her as the best candidate. "

While I generally agree with you, I would like to point out that being a governor >>>>> community organizer for qualifications.

5/26/2011 7:48:36 PM

half term governor >>>>>>>>> community organizer, graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School, president of the Harvard Law Review, attorney, constitutional law professor, and senator

If you say so.

5/26/2011 8:13:23 PM

But she's like us.

5/26/2011 8:30:30 PM

Quote :

"attorney"

you really typed that out? Also liked the "half term governor" before you mentioned senator. haha

Please dont take this as I support Palin at all. I just wanted to point out the "qualified" arguement with what we have currently.

Constitutional law professor, that fact alone is LOL.

5/26/2011 8:56:49 PM

give it a couple weeks, Rick Perry is going to sweep in for the nomination.

5/27/2011 12:25:20 AM

Quote :

"While I generally agree with you, I would like to point out that being a governor senator>>>>> community organizer loony quitter for qualifications."

[Edited on May 27, 2011 at 1:15 AM. Reason : senator]

5/27/2011 1:15:41 AM

Quote :

"Newt Gingrich, a fiscal conservative? Not when it comes to Tiffany’s. In 2005 and 2006, the former House speaker turned presidential candidate carried as much as $500,000 in debt to the premier jewelry company, according to financial disclosures filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55125.html#ixzz1NYOwRcmT"

5/27/2011 8:07:10 AM

i'd almost rather have obama back in office over palin.

5/27/2011 8:16:24 AM

Palin does well to be on the sidelines, trolling liberals as a commentator. That's about as far as I would trust her.

I agree with the point above that the upcoming generation is very socially liberal. I'd like to think that they are against big government spending and govt intrusion in general, but I can also see these people raised with the notion that being fucked in the ass by Washington is just how things are meant to be.

[Edited on May 27, 2011 at 8:47 AM. Reason : ngj]

5/27/2011 8:44:07 AM

they're too dumb to even realize they're being fucked by washington

5/27/2011 9:30:02 AM

I give [some] people more credit than that. This isn't an easy time to be graduating and beginning work. Most people I know (age 24-27) are not even considering having a family. Many of them live at home, still. This has major implications. I think people are slowly realizing that we are getting poorer in this country, and it's happening faster than anyone thought it would. This is not "the dream" that we were all told would be waiting once we were done with school.

It's becoming more evident that we do need to do a complete 180. Little tweaks here and there won't do. We've been fucked over by the older generations, and now they're telling us to just suck it up. We need leaders that will tell the truth and lay things out on the table as they are. I don't want comforting words. The truth is that the economy needs to be rebuilt on a solid infrastructure, and until that happens, the United States will fall further behind.

[Edited on May 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2011 11:40:44 AM

^^^,^^, Republicans haven't been small government since I've been alive. "Conservatives" have been fucking us for as hard and as long as "liberals."

[Edited on May 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM. Reason : us]

5/27/2011 12:56:07 PM

you're preaching to the choir

5/27/2011 4:58:32 PM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/05/im_not_gonnashoot_sparks_out_my_ears.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"'I'm Not Gonna...Shoot Sparks Out My Ears' David Kurtz | May 27, 2011, 3:25PM Tim Pawlenty's first week officially on the Presidential merry-go-round:"

5/27/2011 5:58:37 PM

Quote :

"I give [some] people more credit than that. This isn't an easy time to be graduating and beginning work. Most people I know (age 24-27) are not even considering having a family. Many of them live at home, still. This has major implications. I think people are slowly realizing that we are getting poorer in this country, and it's happening faster than anyone thought it would. This is not "the dream" that we were all told would be waiting once we were done with school. "

What I find amazing is that my liberal friends rail against the Ryan plan bc seniors will have to pay MORE for the services they use. The alternative is for younger generations to pay an even greater share to cover the cost of the elderly. So when I ask them why they favor taking more from the generation that is just starting to earn and has the highest expenses, student loans, mortgages, family so that the elderly, who have the greatest wealth, wont have to spend more for their OWN health care, they look at me like I just asked them the square root of something.

It is no wonder why people are having less kids, esp among the educated who arent getting subsidies. They have to pay for everything else, it is hard to afford to raise your own kids. We have to get the govt out of the looting business to have a chance. But I just dont see it happening. Just let it bankrupt and move to the state that secedes.

5/27/2011 6:22:10 PM

Quote :

"What I find amazing is that my liberal friends rail against the Ryan plan bc seniors will have to pay MORE for the services they use. The alternative is for younger generations to pay an even greater share to cover the cost of the elderly. So when I ask them why they favor taking more from the generation that is just starting to earn and has the highest expenses, student loans, mortgages, family so that the elderly, who have the greatest wealth, wont have to spend more for their OWN health care, they look at me like I just asked them the square root of something."

Maybe it's because they're not as greedy as you.

[Edited on May 27, 2011 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2011 6:26:03 PM

^the contradiction is that in every other conversation they want to take more from the rich to give the poor. In this case, they want to do the opposite. I dont think they even realize it though, which is sad/funny.

As for me being greedy I ask which is more greedy? Wanting to keep more of what you earn or wanting more of what someone else earned?

Call me crazy but I dont think the govt should be used to aid looting but protect ones liberties from another. (which it has a history of NOT doing)

I dont think it is cruel to be handed a bill when I go out to eat, just as I dont think it is cruel to be handed a bill when I use a service. Hard to argue reason with emotion kid.

5/27/2011 6:57:55 PM

You have some glaring inaccuracies in your logic.

1. Most old people who use Medicare are not rich, your friends really aren't contradicting themselves.

2. The whole idea that we're paying for their shit and getting nothing in return is dishonest, because they also paid for their parents, and our children will pay for ours.

I get that you don't agree with the idea of social safety nets, but your reasoning for it is off.

5/27/2011 7:11:11 PM

i don't want the next generation to pay for mine

i'd prefer to get my money and save/invest it myself. it's a wild concept, i know.

5/27/2011 7:18:12 PM

Quote :

"2. The whole idea that we're paying for their shit and getting nothing in return is dishonest, because they also paid for their parents, and our children will pay for ours."

I don't know about that. I think you're imagining the current entitlement system as solvent and sustainable; it is anything but. You don't really believe that social security will be waiting for you when you're 65, do you?

5/27/2011 7:38:01 PM

Quote :

"the contradiction is that in every other conversation they want to take more from the rich to give the poor. In this case, they want to do the opposite. I dont think they even realize it though, which is sad/funny."

Well if you wanted to make it a rich versus poor thing, I'm sure they would be fine reducing benefits for people over X income or whatever, but you're being intellectually dishonest here, because not all old people are rich, they tend to have more wealth on average, but that wealth is designed to be drained over coming years, and I, like most liberals, just don't want them to go without basic food or medicine.

5/27/2011 7:58:59 PM

Quote :

"1. Most old people who use Medicare are not rich, your friends really aren't contradicting themselves."

1.You do realize that EVERYONE 65 and over is Medicare eligible right? And you also realize that MOST people are not rich, regardless of age. With that said, the older generations CLEARLY have more wealth than the younger generations.

2.Medicare as it is now will CLEARLY not be there when we reach 65. LIke most ponzi schemes they tend to go bust at some point. Please do yourself a favor and start saving early for your retirement too.

^Kris, you also realize that the Ryan plan DOES JUST THAT reducing the subsidies for those with higher incomes and raising it for lower incomes? (I would guess not) Also you libs love grouping people and that group is much more wealthy than the younger groups who are asked to keeping footing the bills, and people wonder why the birth rates are down.

Shit I graduated with close to 100k in student loan debt before I started my career, and I was lucky my mother paid for my undergrad. Add in the mortgage, childcare, cost of raising kids, etc. The fact you havent worked that many years. These are the main reasons why the younger generations dont have much wealth.

[Edited on May 27, 2011 at 10:39 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2011 10:38:56 PM

Latest CNN poll:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/27/rel9a.pdf

Quote :

"Giuliani 16% Romney 15% Palin 13% Paul 12% Cain 10% Gingrich 8% Bachmann 7%"

5/28/2011 12:47:55 AM

^Wait, what? Giuliani? Really?

Goddamn, this is the shittiest group of GOP candidates in my lifetime. Time for Huntsman to jump in and sweep the floor with these clowns.

5/28/2011 5:39:55 AM

The general public doesn't know any of the candidates and just picks their favorite color in these polls.

When is the next debate? We need something to force the issues out to these damn people

[Edited on May 28, 2011 at 7:49 AM. Reason : its like the basketball coaching search all over again]

5/28/2011 7:49:29 AM

Quote :

"Time for Huntsman to jump in and sweep the floor with these clowns."

Kind of late in the game for that. Last election the candidates were getting in as early as Jan and Feb. And its only a week or so until the 2nd debate. Missing 2 debates and not even having an exploratory committee yet wouldn't bode well.

5/29/2011 9:42:48 PM

Quote :

"2. The whole idea that we're paying for their shit and getting nothing in return is dishonest, because they also paid for their parents, and our children will pay for ours. "

This is why Ponzi schemes never fail.

5/29/2011 10:33:06 PM

Quote :

"You don't really believe that social security will be waiting for you when you're 65, do you?"

It will be there, if we don't give it away to Wall St. first.

How is social security anything but solvent? Medicare is out of control, but social security is not.

5/30/2011 12:16:34 AM

^agree

5/30/2011 9:12:06 AM

if you think it'll be there, then keep paying it. i just want to be able to opt out.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM. Reason : without becoming amish]

5/30/2011 10:23:15 AM

yeah, I agree, thats not a bad idea

I'd like to opt out of paying for Iraq

5/30/2011 11:07:48 AM

Quote :

"How is social security anything but solvent? Medicare is out of control, but social security is not. "

Seriously? Medicare/Medicaid and debt servicing are on track to consume 100% of revenues in fairly short order. You are correct that SS is a far smaller hole in the ship than Medicare, but the ship is still going down. (unless something is done, which I have no faith it will until it HAS to)

Please dont plan your retirement on it. If it is there, great. I just think it would be foolish the way things are to be counting on it.

Quote :

"This is why Ponzi schemes never fail."

So true. Gotta have a growing number of NEW people paying in. Look at what a mess the boomers are causing these programs as the generation behind them have far less people.

5/30/2011 11:19:42 AM

SS is solvent?! It started to send out more money than it takes in several years ahead of when it was expected to (doing so last year). It is borrowing the money to keep up with the benefits...for now. Those benefits will be GREATLY reduced by the time any of us get to take out of it.

Bottom line is that Social Security is currently adding to the deficit/debt.

I'm pretty sure factcheck.org did a thing about it late last year or early this year.

5/30/2011 11:22:47 AM

"It's becoming more evident that we do need to do a complete 180. Little tweaks here and there won't do. We've been fucked over by the older generations, and now they're telling us to just suck it up. We need leaders that will tell the truth and lay things out on the table as they are. I don't want comforting words. The truth is that the economy needs to be rebuilt on a solid infrastructure, and until that happens, the United States will fall further behind."

^
This!

5/30/2011 11:52:03 AM

^at the very least you have to give people time to plan for these programs not being there and free up some of their money so they can save for it.

Now could we stop covering erection meds for current retirees? Yep. Can we raise the age for SS and Medicare? Yep. But I dont think you can just stop providing these for people that are on them completely. We can, however, start to wean people off.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2011 1:00:34 PM

I don't understand wtf the Republican party is thinking about putting any type of weight behind Palin. The shit that comes out of her mouth is gibberish. I lost all interest in her when she said something along the lines of our presence in Iraq being God's will/war.

IMO, there is a large and growing number of socially liberal conservatives (read: libertarians) that don't really have a powerful candidate to get behind. The closest is Ron Paul.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]]

5/30/2011 1:26:29 PM

Quote :

"yeah, I agree, thats not a bad idea I'd like to opt out of paying for Iraq"

Haha, yep. That's the problem with taxation by force (not that it could be by any other method): you're usually going to be helping pay for something that you find morally objectionable.

^^I agree that we shouldn't just cut people off, but changes need to be made soon, or we're not even going to get that transition phase. The politicians want to ignore entitlements, but it needs to be addressed in the next five years.

Quote :

"I lost all interest in her when she said something along the lines of our presence in Iraq being God's will/war."

I lost interest when she was being interviewed by some major news anchor, and she couldn't name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe vs. Wade, or a single publication that she read on a regular basis.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2011 1:32:18 PM

Mitt Romney says that his campaign isn't run by lobbyists, and a reporter confronts him, saying that one of his senior advisors is a well-known lobbyist. Ah...good ole' Mitt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVA2Tr_GTlk

5/31/2011 12:50:36 AM

Quote :

"Republicans brace for tough 2012 fight against Obama in unlikely place — N.C. By Amy Gardner, Published: May 30 RALEIGH, N.C. — By any number of indicators, President Obama shouldn’t have much of a chance in North Carolina next year. In no state was Obama’s 2008 win closer — he won by just 14,177 votes, or 0.3 percent of the electorate — and he’s less popular now. The economy, now Obama’s economy, is in worse shape. And voters here have turned against many Democrats, ousting a congressman and a slew of state lawmakers last fall. But if Republican activists are feeling confident, you wouldn’t know it by what they’re doing and saying. Republicans are poring over the details of how Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state since Jimmy Carter. They are trying to pass laws in the legislature to restrict the early-voting system that Obama used to such remarkable effect. And Republicans are preaching to anyone who will listen that those who think Obama couldn’t possibly win here again had better wake up and get to work. “They turned out voters in record numbers last time, and we need to be ready,” said Robin Hayes, chairman of the North Carolina GOP and a former congressman who was defeated in the 2008 wave that Obama led. “We expect them to be as good and probably better. We know they’ll have more money. And if you think that’s not the case, you’re making a foolish mistake.” "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-brace-for-tough-2012-fight-against-obama-in-unlikely-place--nc/2011/05/20/AGi7lzEH_print.html

5/31/2011 12:11:22 PM

Quote :

""Giuliani 16% Romney 15% Palin 13% Paul 12% Cain 10% Gingrich 8% Bachmann 7%""

WHERE IS GARY JOHNSON DAMMIT!?!?

5/31/2011 1:25:09 PM

He's got very little name recognition, right now. Maybe that will change once the major debates start up.

5/31/2011 1:36:05 PM

For comparison the latest Suffolk University Poll from around the middle of the month:

Quote :

"Mitt Romney 20 Sarah Palin 12 Newt Gingrich 9 Mike Huckabee 8 Rudy Giuliani 7 Ron Paul 5 Michele Bachmann 4 Herman Cain 4 Mitch Daniels 4 Tim Pawlenty 3 Rick Santorum 3 Donald Trump 1 Jon Huntsman 0 Gary Johnson 0 Buddy Roemer 0"

5/31/2011 11:23:12 PM

God damn it Johnson, get your name out there

6/2/2011 12:21:18 PM

6/3/2011 12:00:42 PM

Statements from the 2012 U.S. President's race

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/elections/2012/us-president/

6/7/2011 1:19:28 PM

yeah that's a completely unbiased site

6/7/2011 1:54:17 PM

^Here's there grading of Rachel Maddow:

http://politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/

6/7/2011 2:17:38 PM