So Much for a Party of “Old White Guys”
Apr 11th, 2010 by David Anderson
This is going around GOP circles.
I love the way it sounds –especially the sound of exploding progressive skulls at the sight.
For the record there is nothing wrong with old white guys or anyone else for that matter–men, women, old, young of any ethnicity.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DelawarePolitics.net. DelawarePolitics.net said: So Much for a Party of “Old White Guys”: This is going around GOP circles. I love the way it sounds –especially t… http://bit.ly/dwJobC [...]
All the progressives I know are laughing at this, not panicking. It’s patently absurd and anti-intellectual. And before you jump on me for saying that, you should read my comment from last night explaining what I mean:
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/an-interview-with-glen-urquhart/comment-page-1/#comment-25519
Dream Ticket for Liberty
and Christine O’Donnell in the Senate. Liberty and Prosperity.
CR says,”It’s patently absurd and anti-intellectual”. CR I’m not sure how it is anti-intellectual, unless you have some sort of elitist attitude.
If the left has not successfully turned her into a cartoon character in the eyes of the American electorate yet, they will. SNL has even brought back Tina Fey’s impersonation.
Palin needs to get out of the lime light for the good of the party. Bring on Ron Paul.
I prefer Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan.
Mike Protack
It’s doubtful that either Palin or Paul will be the Republican candidate in ’12. It’s too early, anyway. What is undeniable is that Palin will have an influence on the ’10 congressional elections, especially in the 45-or-so districts with a Socialist-Democrat incumbent, districts that McCain carried in ’08. If the left wants to ridicule Palin, let them; they won’t think it’s so funny when the next Congress is sworn-in in Jan. ’11.
I agree with Rick. FBH you have too much confidence in the media. Far from staying out of the limelight, she needs to be front and center. Rove and Bush found that out. They stayed out in front and it served them well no matter what the left and media said. In the second term they decided to sit back and not engage since he won reelection anyway. He could stay above it and focus on governing. That was a failure. Rove regrets it now that he let people talk him into it.
You have to counter the lies and distortions or else they become reality. The reason Palin defies the best efforts of destruction is that she choose to come down here and fight them. They should have left her alone and let her govern up in Alaska, but they decided to destroy her. That was their mistake.
I don’t know who I favor yet. It is too early. I like Huckabee/Palin. Daniels/Ryan would be great. Romney/Watts or Palin would be great. Barbour/Watts or Jindal would be positive. If Christie can turn NJ around and survive prayers by the teacher’s union, he would be great on a ticket. Governor Hoeven is also worth watching.
@Frank Knotts:
I don’t think it makes me elitist to want a smart, intellectual candidate in both halves of the ticket. They are neither of them conservative intellectuals. Michele Bachmann recently said it was bad that President Obama was restrict the US from using nuclear weapons against a cyber-attack. It is totally absurd to think it would ever be a good idea to respond to a cyber attack with nuclear weapons. Beyond disproportionate. Cyber attacks could theoretically be devastating, but it’s very unlikely there would be casualties. In practice, we know nukes cause massive casualties.
And Palin is proudly anti-science (e.g. a creationist). As I said in my previous comment on that Urquhart interview post, conservatives should reject those who attack science. It delegitimizes the movement when they are associated with ideas from several centuries ago. Conservatives in other advanced countries are still conservative, and they are pro-science. Why? Because conservatives say they are realistic and rely on facts and data, and therefore they must accept the facts and data provided by the scientists to make sound policy.
I don’t think that you can legitimately call Mrs. Bachman anti-intellectual just because you disagree with a phrase.
The U. S. would not use nukes against a non nuke power anyway except to prevent enormous loss of life. The ambiguity that existed was just enough to keep people guessing. That is valuable. That is what Michelle Bachman was talking about.
That ticket sounds perfect for the year — as in the title of the FILM “2012.” IOW, it’ll be 2012 for the GOP if that’s the actual ticket.
That said, CR — can you provide a source that demonstrates that Palin is a pure creationist?
In addition, I suggest you read (or at least read the summary) of the book One Second After, about a devastating cyber attack … well, technically an EMP attack. Terrorists used nukes, but not directly against the US. They detonated them high above the atmosphere, and the resultant EMP totally blew away the US’s electronic infrastructure. In a couple months, tens of millions were dead. And this book is based on lengthy DoD studies of such a scenario.
Would the US be justified in retaliating with nukes in such a case?
BTW, all I found was that Palin favored allowing creationism to be taught in schools. I don’t agree w/that, FWIW. In the same article, she said “Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me.”
Sounds to me like she believes in evolution and also in the Bible. I don’t see how she could take creationism literally and still subscribe to evolutionary theory, so maybe she holds a modified belief in creationism, a la “intelligent design.”
Oh, link to the aforementioned article:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html
Hube is correct about an EMP if that is the type of cyber attack. That would almost have to be done by a nation however. As he said, holding open an option of massive retaliation is not dumb or “anti-intellectual”.
I love the readership Hube. It is the number 1 post and I didn’t have to write anything. There is a lot of interest in these two and I had the chance to put them in one post.
I doubt that this would be the ticket. It would be a fun one though and it could win. I think Mike’s ticket of Daniels and Ryan would be cool though it might put some people to sleep. We could use some intellectual problem solvers. Right now, I would rather see Ryan as Majority leader and Pence speaker. Appoint Boehner to something. I would lean to Romney as President with someone like Palin to fire up the base as VP. Huckabee as President would be even better and he is the only Republican who consistently wins today, but I am not sure that he wants to run. If unemployment is still above 8% and the President just vetos Republican bills, it won’t matter who we put up. They will win.
I expect a candidate to come out of nowhere; Sen. John Thune (R-SD).
Palin/Bachmann 2012
If there is a God, please make this happen!!
Daniels/Thune is a ticket that I could see, Rick.