Posted on 12/13/2010 4:37:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Supporters of Sarah Palin seem to view her as the second coming of Christ, and given her self-appointed code name of "North Star," it seems that she agrees with them. Speculation on a 2012 presidential run by Palin almost sounds as if her candidacy is divinely ordained.
Next thing we know, she'll tell us she was born in a barn because all the hospital beds were occupied.
Not so fast, cautions Politics Daily. Mike Huckabee could pose fierce competition for Sarah Palin, even among those Republicans who, inexplicably, think she's a well-qualified candidate.
Ever play that game on long road trips where you have to choose between two seemingly equally horrible scenarios, like giving a 20-minute speech in front of your high school graduating class while naked or subsisting entirely on bugs for a month? That's how I view a choice between Palin and Huckabee. I'll take what's behind door number three, thanks.
No, really? I have to choose? Then it's got to be Huckabee. (How's that for a campaign slogan? It's got to be Huckabee. Copyrighting that now.)
He's as socially conservative as she is, or perhaps even more so given his ministry. He's a FOX News commentator like she is. He drops his g's occasionally, though less often than she does. But who's more qualified? Hands down, Mike Huckabee. Furthermore, who would I rather have representing our country in the world? Huckabee.
I'm admittedly impressed by Politics Daily's recap of how, as Arkansas governor, "Huckabee faced a legislature with 89 Democrats out of 100 legislators in the House and only four Republicans in the 35-seat Senate. Yet, Huckabee found a way to govern." Palin knows how to govern people who agree with her. Governing those who may not march in lockstep requires more finesse.
With the advent of the Tea Party, plus the ostracizing and name-calling within the Republican party, a successful GOP candidate will have to bridge those gaps, as well as work with Democrats. Huckabee demonstrated he could do that at the state level. Palin isn't interested in working with anyone who doesn't agree with her, and her governing style at a national level would appear to be more dictatorial than consensus-building.
Huckabee's personable and has the same sort of beer-drinking, pretzel-munching, football-watching appeal that George W. Bush did, but he's far more well-spoken than the former president. Palin attempts to cultivate that ability to connect with people, but hers is a caricature of Huckabee's, and it arouses suspicion. Those who love her are convinced they know her, but the rest of us aren't so sure.
Play along with me (Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Socialists, even you commie pinkos -- everyone's welcome): Naked speech, or bugs for lunch? Huckabee or Palin?
Looks like I’m in good company!
:-)
Neither one.
I am willing to go out on a limb and suggest that 65 to 70% of “voting” America has no idea who Mike Huckabee is.
I want a conservative president who shows some passion and is a lightening rod.
It’s an opinion and I’m entitled to it, or don’t you three believe in free speech?
Instead of presenting a reasonable argument for your favorite POTUS candidate, you hurl insults at me without knowing a darn thing about me or who I am. You’re making a big mistake and if you can’t see it now, I can assure you it will be the actions of folks like you who WILL cost Palin the election even if she turns out to be the best candidate.
I’ll explain:
I’ve been active in politics for 40 years. I’m well known in IL for my activism in the Tea Party and in trying to get RINOs out of the IL GOP. I also hold a tiny bit of influence over the IA GOP committee, one that is crucial to any POTUS candidate.
FYI: I made over 100 phone calls to the McCain camp in 2008 to try to get Palin on the ticket because back then, I really liked her. By using insults instead of reason in your posts, you alienate people like me who if convinced, could make a big difference in a state which overwhelmingly favors Democrats, precisely because I am active and get out there to make a difference. I don’t just sit on my keester and post on forums all day.
This is the same mistake Ron Paul supporters made. Not that I like Paul for POTUS (I don’t) or that he might have stood a chance (I don’t think he did) - that’s not the point. If you look at why many people turned away from Paul as a candidate, you’ll find it was due to the actions and words of his SUPPORTERS, not the candidate himself. Because of their thoroughly obnoxious behavior, we now have a new word in our lexicon - Paultards. I assure you that if you continue bashing good conservatives with insults and foul language, a new word will be coined in 2012 - Palintards.
Don’t go there. Develop a good argument and be prepared to back it up with proof. Otherwise, you’ll wind up causing damage to Palin instead of helping her.
The election is still almost two years away. There are potentially many candidates out there who are not RINOs, who are not Romney or Huckabee. Nobody has officially announced yet, including Palin. I’m waiting to see who jumps in. It is still possible I may come around to viewing Palin as viable. Should that happen, I’ll throw my money and support behind her.
However, if I see the same type of crowd forming behind her as those who supported Ron Paul, with continual harrassment and insults and nasty pile-on flaming on forums like this one, I assure you I’ll do everything in my power to make sure she loses.
Your choice folks. You draw a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. My suggestion: Don’t become Palintards.
He was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Well said.
The problem is with Obama, not some inate short-coming in a Senator becoming president. This guy is just a clueless ideologue. Thune is a smart conservative who’d implement conservative policies. Obama’s failed because he’s a Marxist, not because he was a Senator. That and his only other experience was hanging flyers on phone poles and calling it a “community organizer.”
one or both of his parents were not born here so there for he is NOT natural born.
None of the above.
The constitution in no way makes the exclusion you claim in defining what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen.
The Court stated that:
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’[11]
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen”, the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Jindal to me is anything but bland. He’s actually more dynamic of a speaker than Huckabee. But even assuming he won’t go back on his “not running” pledge, there are plenty of other solid conservatives we could run in 2012 who don’t have the baggage Palin has. I want to spend 2012 on the offensive against Obama’s failed presidency, not defending Palin against Levi Johnson.
Re: “I guess you just forgot to mention the most vile, disgusting candidate of all.”
********************
I don’t know who you are referring to — I kind of like Pence, Thune and would welcome Chris Christie if he were interested. There are so many who seem to be interested in running —
I’m not interested in the old standbys — Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, et al.............
Chris Christi is one of the few Republicans I’ve seen who really “gets it” when it comes to the economy. It doesn’t matter what you think, I think, Libs think, Muslims think, or anyone else until everyone grasps this all-important fact: THERE IS NO MORE MONEY! No more money for political posturing, no more money for special interests. Libtard Progressive or Conservative, it doesn’t matter at this point. Chris Cristie knows the buck stopped a while back. No one wanted to acknowledge it. Extrem fiscal conservatism is the only method that is going to come close to saving this economy and that’s going to take a huge amount of moxy and stick-to-itiveness. Chris Cristie has those in spades.
But maybe you’re one of those shallow ponderers who think he’s just too fat, huh?
Your post makes me question your conservatism.
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.