17%

Posted: 7 July 2009 in media, obamanation, politics, republicans

According to a recent poll, 70% of Republicans are still batshit froot-loops crazy for Sarah “No Time For This Governing Bullshit” Palin.  Seriously?  70%?  Has the Republican Party shrunk so much that the only people left are insane crackheads who think that Palin is actually good at anything?

This is, after all, the woman who just makes up her own fictional government departments.  I mentioned to a co-worker earlier today that there should be a standard requirement for anyone running for President or Vice President:  you should have a four year degree in Constitutional Law.  I don’t say that just because the current POTUS and VPOTUS happen to fit that bill, I say that because the Oath of Office requires them to protect the Constitution, so they should at very know what the fuck they’re protecting.

Back to that poll – who the fuck are those 17% of Democrats that would vote for Palin?  I’m really hoping that they’re poll jammers and not serious.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Leigh says:

    Given the rate that even the wingnuts are turning are her, I wonder if that number isn’t steadily dropping. She’ll always retain her 20% base of insane supporters, but she isn’t going to be able to maintain more than that now that more information about her erratic behaviour is coming out.

  2. JD Curtis says:

    As a conservative, I can see why people are gravitating toward her (Palin). Yes, psrt of it would seem to be the lack of other serious, viable contenders in the potential field of Republicans. Although I think she is a bit smarter than the press gives her credit for, I hope that Romney wins the nomination. We were suck with “McShamnesty” last time and I hope that taught a lesson to all of the UNrealists on the GOP side.

  3. Còmhradh says:

    Although I think she is a bit smarter than the press gives her credit for,

    I don’t. I think George W. Bush is smarter than he lets on, but not Sarah Palin. I used to have a theory that the McCain-Palin ticket was the Republican powers-that-be attempting to save their village by burning it to the ground. Considering the fact that Palin hasn’t gone away yet, the only way that theory is correct is if she didn’t get that memo. She consistently fails to notice how she comes off as a blithering idiot, has a flawed (at best) view of how this country works, and appears at all times to be putting her own self-interest above even that of her family.

    She’s not just a useless politician, she’s a bad person.

  4. JD Curtis says:

    Bush was smarter than Kerry and it was unfortunate to see the media fawn all over a dope like that. When I stated that Palin was “a bit smarter than the press gives her credit for”, perhaps “shrewd” would have been a better word. I wouldnt call her a bad person though. Obama scares me. Really.

  5. Còmhradh says:

    Bush was smarter than Kerry

    When I said that Bush is smarter than he lets on, I don’t mean that I think that the man is Mensa material. Kerry is a far more intelligent man than Bush, however, Bush (or rather, Bush’s political machine) had far more political savvy than Kerry’s. Kerry didn’t exactly run a good campaign, and all Bush had to do was make a short jump over the low hurdle that Kerry presented.

    When I stated that Palin was “a bit smarter than the press gives her credit for”, perhaps “shrewd” would have been a better word.

    I don’t see that, either. Not a single move of hers displayed any sort of political acumen. I have every confidence in saying that she is quite possibly the greatest mixture of position and incompetence since Warren G. Harding.

    I wouldnt call her a bad person though.

    She repeatedly and dramatically placed her own political ambitions (which were ridiculously inflated to begin with) above her family and the people she served. She was a vocal champion of causes she herself failed to heed. I wouldn’t call her a good person.

    Obama scares me. Really.

    Well, that’s completely off topic. Obama disappoints me, but I wouldn’t say he scares me.

    What, in particular, scares you about Barack Obama? As Presidents go, he was a centrist who has been slowly shifting right ever since he secured the nomination. Now, a rightward tack would normally be cause for concern for me, but this was not unexpected. Obama will be remembered as a center-right moderate.

  6. JD Curtis says:

    Kerry is a far more intelligent man than Bush

    When I posted that, I meant by way of standardized tests that they both took, GPA at Yale, SAT scores and a by military tests. Larry Elder spelled this out magnificently for us.

    Not a single move of hers (Palin’s) displayed any sort of political acumen

    This from the country that has President Obama at the helm? Anything is possible as his presidency now proves. If she (Palin) already has a significant persentage of the population behind her (or at least without unfavorable ratings ala Hillary) then if she actually works at it a litte, who knows what could happen?

    She repeatedly and dramatically placed her own political ambitions (which were ridiculously inflated to begin with) above her family and the people she served.

    She scored MEGA points with the pro-family types when she gave birth to her last baby. The rest of her young-uns not withstanding.

    What, in particular, scares you about Barack Obama?

    The rapid, break-neck speed in which we are heading toward head-on, 100 mile an hour socialism. That being said, I think that we would be on the same road if McCain had won except at a much slower, more measured pace.

  7. Còmhradh says:

    Larry Elder spelled this out magnificently for us.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t consider World Net Daily to be any more a legitimate source of information than the World Weekly News.

    This from the country that has President Obama at the helm

    Are you an honest debater or just a crank? I’m starting to suspect the latter.

    then if she actually works at it a litte, who knows what could happen?

    Her performance so far is not promising in that regard. Seriously – what does she have to show for her political career?

    She scored MEGA points with the pro-family types when she gave birth to her last baby.

    Yes, because nothing says “pro-family” like taking three days off to bear a child and then accepting a Vice Presidential nomination. I think that says far more about the pro-family and pro-life crowd than it does about her.

    The rapid, break-neck speed in which we are heading toward head-on, 100 mile an hour socialism.

    Ahh, I should have known that old was going to rear its ugly head.

    Please learn what “socialism” means, how 0.21% of American corporate business assets held by the government simply does not fit with that mold, and how the political spectrum works. Then maybe we can talk.

    If we were heading toward “head-on, 100 mile an hour socialism,” one would think that we’d at least have a decent public healthcare system, like every other industrialized capitalist nation on the planet.

  8. JD Curtis says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t consider World Net Daily to be any more a legitimate source of information than the World Weekly News.

    Unless you are calling Larry Elder a liar, I would drop that line of questioning. I heard the same information from other souces and I recommend that you take a pass on this one.

    Are you an honest debater or just a crank? I’m starting to suspect the latter.

    Please list for me the top, well…ONE accomplishment of the Obama Administration. We’ll take it from there.

    Seriously – what does she have to show for her political career?

    Governor of the State of Alaska. What did Chairman Obama have to show? Seriously. Apart from “community organizing”, of course.

    nothing says “pro-family” like taking three days off to bear a child and then accepting a Vice Presidential nomination.

    Is it your belief that the standard, feminazi would have even been in a position to even deliver a child with known defects as such or are they much older and can babble about how THEY would have done it?

    Please learn what “socialism” means, how 0.21% of American corporate business assets held by the government simply does not fit with that mold, and how the political spectrum works. Then maybe we can talk.

    If the largest insurer and car manufacurer arent enough for you. I dont know what else is. What Would Reagan Do? Time will tell.

    If we were heading toward “head-on, 100 mile an hour socialism,” one would think that we’d at least have a decent public healthcare system, like every other industrialized capitalist nation on the planet.

    Please point me toward the shiny, sexy example of “public healthcare” that I can sponge off it’s existance.

  9. Còmhradh says:

    Unless you are calling Larry Elder a liar, I would drop that line of questioning. I heard the same information from other souces and I recommend that you take a pass on this one.

    Recommendation noted. Find a source that doesn’t peddle lies and disinformation, and I’ll consider it. Until that point, WND is a tabloid and I consider any article from it to be suspicious at best. Oh look, the first seven articles on their homepage all deal with Obama’s birth certificate. I wonder if there’s an article in there about Bat Boy holding the original that states that Obama was born in Saskatchewan.

    Please list for me the top, well…ONE accomplishment of the Obama Administration. We’ll take it from there.

    I’ll give you three – SCHIP, financial stabilization and foreign policy overhaul (all of which are significant, none of which went far enough in my opinion).

    Governor of the State of Alaska. What did Chairman Obama have to show? Seriously. Apart from “community organizing”, of course.

    Uh huh. You do realize that as State Senator, Obama represented 39 times as many people as Palin did as Mayor of Wasilla, and as a U.S. Senator, he represented 18 times as many people as Palin did as Governor of Alaska (to be fair though, Obama didn’t finish his term, either). In fact, Obama had more time serving in elected office than the previous President from Illinois.

    As for that “community organizer” knock, that’s just myopic. Would you prefer a chief executive that couldn’t organize a community?

    Never mind, the majority of this exchange bears that out.

    Is it your belief that the standard, feminazi would have even been in a position to even deliver a child with known defects as such or are they much older and can babble about how THEY would have done it?

    I’d address this, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    If the largest insurer and car manufacurer arent enough for you. I dont know what else is.

    Maybe new regulations to ensure that we’d never hear the phrase “too big to fail” again. The market is obviously not self-regulating because it cannot anticipate the ridiculous greed and abject stupidity of those in control of it. And again: .21% of American corporate business assets does not in any way equate to or even resemble socialism. Call me when the government has nationalized, oh… 30% of the nation’s corporate assets, and then we’ll talk.

    What Would Reagan Do? Time will tell.

    Time did tell. Reagan (or rather, the people running the government for him) ruined the economy, propped up dictators, supported death squads, committed treason, and left a mess that took twelve years to recover from, just so we could do it all over again (this time with explosions!)

    Please point me toward the shiny, sexy example of “public healthcare” that I can sponge off it’s existance.

    I consider any public healthcare system shiny and sexy if it doesn’t leave 12% of said public in medical jeopardy and 86% of the rest in fear of becoming part of that 12% should they have the misfortune to get sick or be closely related to someone that does.

    I’d think that a capitalist would understand the value of a healthy workforce. But then, I’d expect a capitalist to expect that the market would allow for a poorly-run company to fail, but the “capitalists” in this country were the first to shriek like Chicken Little when banks started falling due to their own mismanagement.

  10. JD Curtis says:

    Find a source that doesn’t peddle lies and disinformation, and I’ll consider it. Until that point, WND is a tabloid and I consider any article from it to be suspicious at best

    I rather like WND, however I can see your point. They do sometimes stray off to “UFO Sighting” territory. I don’t know why because I think the rest of their site is fantastic.

    Insofar as other sources to the info provided by Larry Elder, this NY Times article states the following….

    “Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. “People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can’t understand,” Professor Gottfredson said.

    Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in “Doonesbury,” that Mr. Bush’s I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.

    You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate’s intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.

    Also to be considered are articles from The Boston Globe and USA TODAY.

    A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing when dealing with others via internet. We all know that there is no shortage of people “spouting off factual nonsense and blatant illogic” through these forums. Which reminds me, where did you get the impression that Kerry was more intelligent?

    SCHIP

    I found a good article if you’re interested.

    Gotta run but I hope to post more later.

  11. JD Curtis says:

    Reagan (or rather, the people running the government for him) ruined the economy

    From whitehouse.gov “. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.” Link

    propped up dictators

    Probably you are referring to the lesser of 2 evils being supported during the Cold War (which Reagan is credited for having won btw)

    supported death squads

    To see what you might be referring to, I tyoped the words [Reagan supported death squads] into a common search engine and it seems that the Guatamalen killings are the most mentioned. In order that we might put this in perspective, what were the total numbers of people killed by these “death squads” and when they are stacked up against such leftist regimes as Pol Pot, Hoxha and The Committee of Public Safety, how do they measure up?

    A. Much more were murdered by “death squads” supported by the Reagan Administration. B. About the same.
    C. These numbers are but a tiny fraction when compared to these regimes.

    committed treason

    treason:The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Link

    Please list for me any instances of Ronald Reagan waging war against the US or giving aid and comfort to it’s sworn enemies.

  12. JD Curtis says:

    I consider any public healthcare system shiny and sexy if it doesn’t leave 12% of said public in medical jeopardy and 86% of the rest in fear of becoming part of that 12% should they have the misfortune to get sick or be closely related to someone that does.

    Oh, I’m not saying that the current system couldnt use improvement. If we fundamentally change health care in this country to say, a more Canadian one, then where will all of the Canadians go for thier health care? Interesting Link

    One thing that have brought up in NUMEROUS forums but doesnt get talked about near as much as I think it should (probably because it’s neither shiny nor sexy) is the topic of Health Savings Accounts. Comhradh, might you do the honor of examining this topic and let me know what you think?

  13. Còmhradh says:

    I rather like WND, however I can see your point. They do sometimes stray off to “UFO Sighting” territory.

    You admit that they “stray” into the crazy, but you still consider them a legitimate source. Interesting.

    However, I remain unconcerned with the results of an IQ test, and the intelligence of Kerry or Bush.

    where did you get the impression that Kerry was more intelligent?

    I judge intelligence by someone’s willingness to expand their knowledge. Bush has proven himself to be notoriously resistant to curiosity, Kerry is not.

    I found a good article if you’re interested.

    That’s a wonderful collection of Republican talking points that Republicans never heed themselves. I particularly love #10: “Stand Up for Fiscal Integrity.”

  14. Còmhradh says:

    where will all of the Canadians go for thier health care?

    Maybe the same place that Americans go?

    Interesting Link

    We all know that things like that never happen here.

    Comhradh, might you do the honor of examining this topic and let me know what you think?

    I think that it doesn’t help the 9% of the workforce that is currently jobless.

  15. Còmhradh says:

    Probably you are referring to the lesser of 2 evils being supported during the Cold War

    Yeah, and how is that working out for us now? The “lesser of two evils” lead directly to 9/11, and guess what? Russia’s still there.

    (which Reagan is credited for having won btw)

    But he didn’t. Reagan didn’t do any more or less to “win” the Cold War than any president going all the way back to Truman. Russia ran out of money quicker than we did. Oh, and as I just said – Russia’s still around. They’ve just learned all of our nasty tricks.

    In order that we might put this in perspective, what were the total numbers of people killed by these “death squads” and when they are stacked up against such leftist regimes as Pol Pot

    Ahh, I see. Our hired butchers didn’t kill as many as someone else’s, and that makes it OK. So, if you were to, say, fly a plane into an office building and kill 30 people, that’s be just fine because someone else did that and killed ten times as many people? Riiiight.

    Please list for me any instances of Ronald Reagan waging war against the US or giving aid and comfort to it’s sworn enemies.

    I seem to remember something about selling weapons to Iran to fund death squads in Central America against Congress’ direct refusal, but hey, it was the 80s, everyone was doing coke and the economy was great, so who cares, right? Besides, Reagan died for our sins.

  16. JD Curtis says:

    I judge intelligence by someone’s willingness to expand their knowledge

    Where are the goalposts? I can’t SEE them!

    Bush has proven himself to be notoriously resistant to curiosity, Kerry is not.

    [citation needed]

    I particularly love #10: “Stand Up for Fiscal Integrity.”

    Well, that’s what happened last time around. When the Republicans had control of both houses, they wound up acting like Democrats and spending money like a drunken sailor.

    Maybe the same place that Americans go?

    Really Comhradh, are you that willfully blind that you can’t see the truth? Canadians come over to this country by necessity, Americans, it would appear, go overseas in search of a bargain.

    We all know that things like that never happen here.

    Irrelevant. Please do not waste my time with this links of this type unless you provide a comparison to the American system and the Canadian one.

    But he didn’t. Reagan didn’t do any more or less to “win” the Cold War than any president going all the way back to Truman. Russia ran out of money quicker than we did.

    And what is the consensus of this “opinion” of yours amongst the countries that were former Soviet sattelites? Yes, Russia ran out of money, this in spite of the fact that certain Democrats in congress fought tooth and nail against Reagan and would have not tried to make them spend a disporportionate amount of their budget on military spending by playing nice-nice with them.

    Ahh, I see. Our hired butchers didn’t kill as many as someone else’s, and that makes it OK. So, if you were to, say, fly a plane into an office building and kill 30 people, that’s be just fine because someone else did that and killed ten times as many people? Riiiight.

    One thing you will not do dear Comhradh, is attribute to me words I did not state nor actions I did not perform. At no time did I state that it was “OK” and I notice that you still havent provided any sort of statistical information regarding the 3 regimes that I mentioned. Please cite your numbers here in orde that we may have a true comparison between errors made by the Reagan administration and the horrors of the aforementioned regimes.

    I seem to remember something about selling weapons to Iran to fund death squads in Central America against Congress’ direct refusal, but hey, it was the 80s, everyone was doing coke and the economy was great, so who cares, right? Besides, Reagan died for our sins.

    I’ll ignore your “Reagan died for our sins” comment unless you can explain how this is somehow pertinent to the discussion. In the meantime, when did the war against Iran begin? How many divisions are commited to the conflict? You specifically stated “treason” was his offense and you havent provided evidence to back up that assertion.

  17. Còmhradh says:

    Unless you are calling Larry Elder a liar, I would drop that line of questioning. I heard the same information from other souces and I recommend that you take a pass on this one.

    Please do not waste my time…

    One thing you will not do…

    This discussion is over. Please show yourself out. I’ve tolerated your insufferable attitude thus far for the sake of rational discussion, however, you’re laboring under the delusion that this is your corner of the internet. It is not. I don’t order you around on your blog, you will not do so on mine.

  18. JD Curtis says:

    This discussion is over.

    Fine. I will allow you to save face in this manner if that is your preferred method.

  19. Còmhradh says:

    Fine. I will allow you to save face in this manner if that is your preferred method.

    Whatever helps you sleep at night. I’m not ending this discussion because I feel in any way “bested” by you, I’m ending it because I’ve given you ample opportunity to behave civilly, and you’ve proven that you can not do that.

    Come back when you can conduct a rational debate.

  20. JD Curtis says:

    foreign policy overhaul

    Heh, stumbled across this today and I thought of you.

    Then, events in Honduras revealed that Obama really has no problem with meddling when a left-wing agenda is advanced. Manuel Zelaya, the president of Honduras and a Hugo Chávez wannabe, illegally defied the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution in an attempt to repeal term limits (which help sustain democracy in Central America by preventing presidents-for-life). The Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office and expel him from the country. A member of Zelaya’s own party replaced him, and elections were announced. But suddenly, Obama — taking much the same position as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez — thought America should join the coalition of the meddlers demanding Zelaya’s return to power. In Iran, Obama was terrified to do anything that might lead to a coup to bring about democracy. In Honduras, Obama was unwilling to let stand a coup that preserved democracy.

    It sure seems like Obama has an ideological problem with democracy.
    Link to full article

  21. JD Curtis says:

    Oh, and LOVE the new look of the site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s