Skip to comments.
Is The Beltway GOP Irrelevant?
Rasmussen Reports ^
| April 28, 2009
| Scott rasmussen
Posted on 04/28/2009 9:05:33 AM PDT by Al B.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: donna
That’s a serious charge. Please explain what you mean and what is your evidence.
21
posted on
04/28/2009 10:11:19 AM PDT
by
mick
(Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
To: mick
A possibility if not for the fact amnesty is practically assured now, and the Dems will have millions of new voters by 2010 and 2012.
To: mick
Her first big spending program is based on her own family’s problems. That’s a hint of the future for sure:
Oct. 24, 2008:
In her first policy address since joining the Republican ticket, Sarah Palin called for parents of special needs children to use federal funding to pick the school of their choice...
Palin also called for full federal funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, phasing in an additional $15 billion in funding over five years.
As opposed to President Reagan:
During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan dubbed the fledgling Department of Education “President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle.”
23
posted on
04/28/2009 10:52:29 AM PDT
by
donna
(Sarah Palin: " ...all of us, who consider ourselves progressive...")
To: Al B.
If its not, it should be.
The only way the GOP can kick out the DemoCommies is by OPPOSING THEM. And the GOP National Leadership has demonstrated AGAIN AND AGAIN that they are spineless, gutless CAPONS.
24
posted on
04/28/2009 11:15:52 AM PDT
by
ZULU
(Obamanation of Desolation is President. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
To: Badeye
Until people like Michael Steele and the people who put him into his position are gone, I’m not holding out any sort of hope.
25
posted on
04/28/2009 11:20:21 AM PDT
by
mountainbunny
(Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
To: donna; Al B.
Thank you. I will take your word for these being Sarah Palin's positions. I really don't know. And if true would not be something I would support. But , frankly, in context I think it is small potatoes. And as far as RR slamming the DOE, you are right. And he also promised to eliminate it. And as you know he didn't. Again, small potatoes.
On the big issues, like Individual Liberty, Small Government, Free Enterprise, RR had it right. IMO so does SP. In contrast to GWB who sold out every one of those principles in the end. I can not see SP ever saying, "I had to violate Free Market principles in order to save it".
I just don't think you have made the case for us fearing SP becoming Bush3.
26
posted on
04/28/2009 11:20:35 AM PDT
by
mick
(Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
To: Badeye
I hope you are right, but until people like Michael Steele and the people who put him into his position are gone, I’m not holding out any sort of hope.
27
posted on
04/28/2009 11:22:04 AM PDT
by
mountainbunny
(Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
To: mick
Sarah Palin supported McCain's positions during the campaign, gave their speeches and even wore their clothes. They got a lot more loyalty from her than they deserved.
I think I'll wait until I hear post-election what her position is on additional Fed help for special-needs kids even though it is certainly, as you say, small potatoes compared to issues such as the return to founding principles and the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- issues which she talked so eloquently and movingly about in Evansville.
28
posted on
04/28/2009 11:37:42 AM PDT
by
Al B.
To: donna
I am also not comfortable with her past support of the Law of the Sea Treaty. It would help me to breath a little easier if I knew that she has repudiated that nonsense. I know the group "Americas Survival" sent her a letter asking that she "examine the facts concerning the U.N.s Law of the Sea treaty". The last I heard, she had not answered them.
She has charisma and the potential to reach out to the public and inspire them but I can not support someone who would get behind something like L.O.S.T. I hope that she has reconsidered as I like her a lot.
29
posted on
04/28/2009 12:02:08 PM PDT
by
rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
To: mick
On the big issues, like Individual Liberty, Small Government, Free Enterprise, RR had it right. IMO so does SP See, this is what I don't understand. You agree that you don't like the evidence I presented and then you ignored the evidence. Bush redux. In fact, that's the same way Obama got elected.
30
posted on
04/28/2009 12:13:16 PM PDT
by
donna
(Sarah Palin: " ...all of us, who consider ourselves progressive...")
To: Al B.
"I think I'll wait until I hear post-election what her position is on additional Fed help for special-needs kids even though it is certainly, as you say, small potatoes compared to issues such as the return to founding principles and the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- issues which she talked so eloquently and movingly about in Evansville. "
I am more concerned that she did not reverse her support for the $700 Billion Wall Street bailout when she was prompted in a post election interview with Human Events political editor John Gizzi. She claimed that she was misled and that she did not have enough information, but basically defended her support for the bailout. She could have easily consulted the House Republicans who rejected the bill and offered a free market alternative, but she did not. This is NOT the behavior of someone poised to lead the conservative movement.
31
posted on
04/28/2009 12:26:53 PM PDT
by
rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
To: donna; Al B.
No. I didn't ignore the evidence. I tried to place the evidence you presented into context. I said I couldn't support the positions you mentioned.
But like Al B said, she was following the party ( MAC ) line.
And I tried to bring in RR to also lend a little perspective into the argument. No one expects to agree on every issue. But there are Big issues and Small issues. You are nit picking on what I consider small issues. Maybe they are Big issues to you. That's fine. But you are not giving us your criteria. I did.
I gave you the issues I consider critical for conservatives. If you show me where she has been in violation of those :ie: Individual Liberty,Small Government, and Free Enterprise.....AS HER OWN POSITIONS AND NOT PART OF HER LOYALTY TO THE TICKET IN 2008, then maybe you can make the claim that she is a potential Bush redux.
Otherwise, I think simple fairness requires you to hold your fire until she is out on her own running for President.
32
posted on
04/28/2009 12:28:16 PM PDT
by
mick
(Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
To: mick
33
posted on
04/28/2009 12:49:06 PM PDT
by
donna
(Sarah Palin: " ...all of us, who consider ourselves progressive...")
To: rob777
She claimed that she was misled and that she did not have enough information, but basically defended her support for the bailout. She defended it because it was the McCain position and because of what she was told, which was that it was a rescue. Nowhere in that interview did she say she supported TARP in the form that it took immediately after it passed. Period. She blasted "Bernanke and the others" for changing the rules right away after it was passed. She also said she fully supported the Republican opposition to the auto bailout.
Since then, she has opposed the stimulus and the other spending crap that has come out of Congress. Her fiscal year 2010 budget in Alaska has a 16% REAL reduction in outlays so far and she hasn't finished with the veto pen yet.
If you're trying to make the case that she's not a limited- government fiscal conservative, you're just flat wrong.
34
posted on
04/28/2009 12:53:11 PM PDT
by
Al B.
To: mountainbunny
No endying Steele has been underwhelming.
35
posted on
04/28/2009 12:54:07 PM PDT
by
Badeye
(There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
To: Al B.
"She defended it because it was the McCain position and because of what she was told, which was that it was a rescue."
There was plenty of information available that indicated it would be a disaster. Numerous free market economists came out against it, as did the GOP House members, who even offered a free market alternative of tax cuts and deregulation. I do not fault Sarah for not bucking the McCain position, but I would like to see her admit that it was the wrong position now that the campaign is over. This would be less of an issue for me if she was not also on record as supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty, or L.O.S.T. Governor Palin seems a little inconsistent when it comes to supporting limited government. That may change with time, but for now I am a little wary. She has time to address these issues in a more consistent way should she decide to run in 2012. I will pay more attention to these things after the 2010 elections are over. For now that is what concerns me more.
36
posted on
04/28/2009 1:24:10 PM PDT
by
rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
To: rob777
I understand your concern on the L.O.S.T. situation. If she takes a position as a national candidate contrary to the interests of U.S. sovereignty, that would be a major problem for me. I don't think she will but will keep an eye on it.
If we can't change Congress in 2010 and get Obama out of the White House in 2012, none of it may matter anyway. And as Scott Rasmussen says in this article (and I agree completely with him), the GOP leadership is utterly lost right now.
37
posted on
04/28/2009 1:35:43 PM PDT
by
Al B.
To: Al B.
"GOP leadership is utterly lost right now."
Sad, but true.
38
posted on
04/28/2009 2:04:29 PM PDT
by
rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
To: US Navy Vet
Its hard to imagine how the party of Ronald Reagan could let that happen, but it did. A few of the culprits: George HW Bush I hate to tell you this, but Ronald Reagan picked GH Bush as his vice president, which was the springboard for him to become president and was also how GW Bush became president.
39
posted on
04/28/2009 3:44:11 PM PDT
by
staytrue
To: staytrue
“hate to tell you this” Don’t EVER talk down to me again! Where were YOU in 1980?! I was at the Iowa Caucus for Ronald Reagan. Bush would have NEVER been anything w/out Reagan!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson