Posted on 04/05/2011 12:41:30 PM PDT by presidio9
What do Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have in common? They are both hot Republican ladies. And, obviously, that means they are secret catfighting frenemies.
As Bachmann's presidential campaign looks more and more serious--she outraised frontrunner Mitt Romney last quarter--political reporters, who discounted her campaign would be little more than a joke, are starting to take notice. Sadly, they can't help but notice that Bachmann is a woman. Who else is a woman? Sarah Palin. And that just forces them to imply a catfight between the sitting Minnesota congresswoman with the former Alaska governor. Bachmann is beginning to "overshadow" Palin, The Hill's Shane D’Aprile and Jordan Fabian write. Palin "is losing some clout" while Bachmann "is the most obvious choice to supplant Palin in next year’s presidential contest." The Hill continues,
"Those close to Bachmann say she isn’t trying to supercede Palin, with one such source noting the two share 'a friendship and mutual admiration.' But if Palin doesn’t run and Bachmann officially jumps in, the prospect is that Bachmann will drown out the former Alaska governor."
Likewise, The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny was able to goad Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad into fantasizing about a cagematch between the two ladies. “If Congresswoman Bachmann gets in, she has the potential to appeal to a lot of people who might have gone for Governor Palin," Branstad told Zeleny. "Imagine if they
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ramble much?
Pwnd.
Wrong, but then again you live in NY and it's a solid blue state, so I will color your *opinion* BOO-HOO BLUE.
The closest thing to a Republican that NY would consider voting for would be Chris Christie but he is a RINO to the liberal side. He has one strong suit: he fights the unions, but he soft on the 2nd Amendment and soft on illegal immigration, obamacare and he was FOR the Ground Zero Mosque.
That's not to say he couldn't beat obama, but his win wouldn't provide much of a *change* for the good unless he swore on a stack of Bibles that he would sign the repeal of obamacare and also secure the border and say NO to amnesty in all forms.
Aside from the uber rich, as it stands right now, Governor Sarah Palin is the only possible candidate capable of raising the $1 Billion Dollars that obama expects to raise.
None of the other possible *hopefuls* have any chance of raising that amount. Maybe Trump can write a check and raise the rest, and Romney too, but Romney won't excite anyone. Trump probably won't be taken seriously enough, but at least he's not the dullard liar Romney.
When Reagan was governor of California, the state in general was not a liberal one.
You’re correct, ought-six, but presidio9 is from NY so s/he thinks he knows everything about CA and RWR’s governorship.______LOL.
You are wrong about Rush and Levin.
False information from PSYCHO-FREEP noted. Thanks.
That's now two on this tread.
I don't think he's going to be trusted much after his mishap this afternoon.
:-)
I'm OK with that -- !
Really? I think you must have missed the part where the voters got sick of (Jerry's father)Pat Brown after two terms and narrowly voted in Reagan. Once there, he was the subject of recall petitions in 1968, 1969, and 1972. In 1967, the Democratic state legislature and state senate passed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act," which Ronald Reagan signed into law, an act which most honest conservatives would find 1000 times more unforgivable than ANY 10 suspect gun control quotes you can dig up from Chris Christie (who is powerless to effect gun control policy in a liberal state like NJ). But let's give you your incorrect version of history. Reagan signed abortion rights into law in a conservative state (where he faced no blowback if he vetoed it, right?). He still went on to be the best and the most pro life president of the 20th century. Do you see how flawed your logic is, or do I need to explain further.
Um no, I'm not running for president. And there are plenty of people more qualified than me who will tell you the exact same thing.
I challenge either one of you to find a recent quote from either one of them specifically supporting a 2012 presidential run. Sure, they defend her against liberal attacks. Sure they like her personally. Sure, they probably even think she might do a good job in office. But you are hearing things they are not saying if you think they actually want her to run. They are too smart and diplomatic to publicly advise her against doing so (and piss off half their audience), but if they really wanted her to run, they'd do a show on it once a week and watch their enormous ratings go even higher. Ten people a day call Rush and say Sara should run. He never responds.
Don't switch the subject.
You made the following claim...
The following people are on record as saying they don't want Palin to run: Rush, Coulter, Mark Levin.
Your claim is wrong.
Oh yeah, we did say you were wrong about them being on record sayng she shouldn't run.
And you were.......
Wrong.
Hey, presidio; I lived there. So you can take your smarmy tone and shove it up your butt.
Except for the Bay Area and some LA enclaves, California was conservative. Reagan was elected in 1966 and re-elected in 1970. Jerry Brown was elected in 1974, narrowly defeating Republican Houston Flournoy, who very well may have lost because of the anti-Republican sentiment that immediately followed Watergate and the Nixon resignation just months before (it was an anti-Republican sentiment, not an anti-conservative sentiment). In fact, Jerry Brown in 1974 wasn’t even close to being the hard left loon he eventually became, and was seen as a fiscal moderate if not a fiscal conservative. Jerry Brown beat out the liberal (John?) Moretti and the far more liberal SF mayor Joe Alioto for the Dem nomination in 1974.
Jerry Brown won in 1974 because California voters liked his father's social liberalism, and Jerry was just as bad. If that differentiated him from the Republican candidate immediately after Watergate, so be it. Jerry didn't get the (overblown) reputation as a fiscal Conservative until AFTER he took office. And since when have Californians cared even a little bit about fiscal conservatism? You're grasping at straws here and changing the argument every time you get backed into a corner.
Let's put it this way: The only way Sarah Palin doesn't get into this flawed pool of candidates is if she knows she'll lose, right? Platitudes aside, the woman obviously wants to be president. So when she announces in June that “I'm going to do what's right for the Palin family and sit this one out,” be sure to think of me.
Actually, if Rush Limbaugh wanted Palin to run, he would shout it out every day, because that's all automatons like yourself want to hear. The fact that he hasn't said it once should have you scratching your pointy head. Not that Rush or I wouldn't be happy to vote for Palin if she gets the nomination. We'd both just like people to put things into perspective. The most important election in the past 150 years isn't for another 20 months and you've already narrowed it down to one possible candidate. It's bizarre.
Then prove it. To repeat: I challenge either one of you to find a recent quote from either one of them specifically supporting a 2012 presidential run. How is that "changing the subject?"
And you lived in California when? Unless you lived in California in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s as I did (except for four years in the USAF during Vietnam), you have absolutely no experience re: California. Don’t try to associate your New York with California. California sucks now, but back then it was paradise, and it was more conservative than liberal. Call me a silly person if you want, and as you did, but what is truly silly is someone like you pontificating on something about which he is wholly ignorant.
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.