Sarah Palin as a Third Party Candidate? Naaah!

[Topspin]

Doubtful. We need 6% GDP growth for the next year just to get unemployment back to the 8-8.5% range. That is not likely to occur. Which means we are likely to see double digit unemployment throughout 2010. 2011 it should start trickling down towards that 8% range, 2012... too far out to see due to so many variables being unknown.

IF the economy is indeed back to full employment (or close)... say back to 6-6.5% by the 2012 election, then I would agree he would be headed for re-election. Anything north of 8% and he is gone. In between the two and it will be up for grabs.

I'm going with 8.5 ish and falling
GDP of 4 to 5% by 2011 and incomes rising at 3 to 5%
easy reelection with wars over

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And government spending is the most direct way to do this. You'd need 3x as many tax cuts to equal a direct stimulus of the say size. The problem with the old taxcutulus was that it was half tax cuts.

It depends on WHAT the government spends on and whom the tax cuts were directed at.

Tax cuts to small business and government spending on infrastructure projects would both be beneficial to job growth. In that scenario, the shovel ready infrastructure jobs would likely be the quickest to ramp up.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Unemployment is probably going to be around 9% in 2012 without a jobs bill. With a jobs bill, maybe 8% or less.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It depends on WHAT the government spends on and whom the tax cuts were directed at.

Tax cuts to small business and government spending on infrastructure projects would both be beneficial to job growth. In that scenario, the shovel ready infrastructure jobs would likely be the quickest to ramp up.

Tax cuts on hiring new workers would be a good idea. It just depends on how expensive it is to hire workers right now. The cuts may need to be very significant to overcome hesitation.

We could make it so that we're essentially suspending the entire corporate income tax for firms that are doing a lot of hiring.

 

[Damocles]

I was interested in a 'theme' I saw yesterday on a couple of 'news' programs, dealing with this Rasmussen poll about a "Tea Party" third party for 2012. The name that kept popping up, was Sarah Palin, as the candidate. Rassie found that 38% would vote Dem... 23% would vote for the Tea Party, and 22% undecided... GOP got 18%! That was interesting, but the suppositions began to touch a nerve with me. Why would Sarah Palin depart from the GOP to run as a 3rd party candidate? This would essentially guarantee a second Obama term.

What this poll tells me is, the Republican "establishment" better wake up fast, and understand where the future is. A return to core principles of conservatism, top to bottom. The understanding that we are a divinely inspired nation with a moral foundation and culture we are not ashamed of, but proud of. To realize, the first step to taking our nation back, is to restore fiscal responsibility. To realize liberalism threatens our courts, schools, universities, churches, and personal property, and we have to stop it now.

Sarah Palin is resoundingly popular because she represents the average American, they can identify with her life, her experiences, even her personal adversities and challenges. Her story is not unlike many Americans, and they can relate to her on a personal level. Contrast this with the plastic face of Nancy Pelosi, and cold handshake from Harry Reid, or even the stoic haughtiness of Newt Gingrich or John McCain. Palin isn't a "politician" type, she is Mrs. Smith Goes To Washington.

I don't see Palin forming a third party, I see her taking the lead in shaping the Republican party, and eventually leading it back to power. Whether as a presidential candidate, or some other role, I think what she has to say, better be listened to by the GOP, or they are through. The Tea Party is a formidable political coalition, and this poll proved it. If this were a chess match with moderates in the party, this was checkmate.

They party has paid far too much attention to religious conservatism to the detriment of fiscal and constitutional conservatism. They lost power because people don't trust them to be responsible with their money and with their rights.

 

[Bonestorm]

When the economy is down and thus consumer spending dissipates, I agree, it can indeed be beneficial if the government finds ways to spark the growth in the economy. (ie... actual JOB creation)

However, the problem is that the idiots in DC will use deficit spending REGARDLESS of the state of the economy. Even in the boom of the 1990's, they STILL outspent their revenue. That is detrimental and detracts from the effectiveness of the government to intervene during harsher economic climates.

1960... that was the last fiscal year our nations debt did not rise.

Side note... welcome back oh wandering one.

At the end of the 1990s the government was well on its way to moving towards significant debt reduction and deficit neutrality. Then something happened.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

At the end of the 1990s the government was well on its way to moving towards significant debt reduction and deficit neutrality. Then something happened.

Agreed, they did try to get us back in the proper direction. Then the tech/internet/telecom bubble burst in March of 2000. Which meant people suddenly had a lot of capital losses to use rather than reporting the massive capital gains that we saw in 1997-1999 (which boosted revenues in 1998-2000).

I know you want to go to your typical 'Bush sucks' ranting... so have at it. He did indeed suck and no question the Rep led Congress sucked right along with him. As did the Dem led Congress from 2007-present.

Bush tax cuts were not sustainable for the long term without corresponding spending cuts. No question. The pill bill monstrosity was a huge detriment to this country. No question. But pretending the recession didn't have anything to do with it would be a tad dishonest.

 

[Canceled2]

I was interested in a 'theme' I saw yesterday on a couple of 'news' programs, dealing with this Rasmussen poll about a "Tea Party" third party for 2012. The name that kept popping up, was Sarah Palin, as the candidate. Rassie found that 38% would vote Dem... 23% would vote for the Tea Party, and 22% undecided... GOP got 18%! That was interesting, but the suppositions began to touch a nerve with me. Why would Sarah Palin depart from the GOP to run as a 3rd party candidate? This would essentially guarantee a second Obama term.

What this poll tells me is, the Republican "establishment" better wake up fast, and understand where the future is. A return to core principles of conservatism, top to bottom. The understanding that we are a divinely inspired nation with a moral foundation and culture we are not ashamed of, but proud of. To realize, the first step to taking our nation back, is to restore fiscal responsibility. To realize liberalism threatens our courts, schools, universities, churches, and personal property, and we have to stop it now.

Sarah Palin is resoundingly popular because she represents the average American, they can identify with her life, her experiences, even her personal adversities and challenges. Her story is not unlike many Americans, and they can relate to her on a personal level. Contrast this with the plastic face of Nancy Pelosi, and cold handshake from Harry Reid, or even the stoic haughtiness of Newt Gingrich or John McCain. Palin isn't a "politician" type, she is Mrs. Smith Goes To Washington.

I don't see Palin forming a third party, I see her taking the lead in shaping the Republican party, and eventually leading it back to power. Whether as a presidential candidate, or some other role, I think what she has to say, better be listened to by the GOP, or they are through. The Tea Party is a formidable political coalition, and this poll proved it. If this were a chess match with moderates in the party, this was checkmate.

Great post Dix! To those who will attack Palin because she is a religious conservative? Check her fiscal and social record in Alaska....her beliefs guide her fiscal conservativism. Her beliefs give a strength of character that keeps her firmly in view of the goal. They keep her grounded...she NEVER attempted to impose them from a position of power!

 

[Bonestorm]

Agreed, they did try to get us back in the proper direction. Then the tech/internet/telecom bubble burst in March of 2000. Which meant people suddenly had a lot of capital losses to use rather than reporting the massive capital gains that we saw in 1997-1999 (which boosted revenues in 1998-2000).

I know you want to go to your typical 'Bush sucks' ranting... so have at it. He did indeed suck and no question the Rep led Congress sucked right along with him. As did the Dem led Congress from 2007-present.

Bush tax cuts were not sustainable for the long term without corresponding spending cuts. No question. The pill bill monstrosity was a huge detriment to this country. No question. But pretending the recession didn't have anything to do with it would be a tad dishonest.

Fair enough, although I'm not at all suggesting that the recession had nothing to do with it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fair enough, although I'm not at all suggesting that the recession had nothing to do with it.

I know you didn't state that, did not intend to imply you had... but you know you wanted to... you know you wanted to go off on a Bush sucks rant... somehow I doubt the recession would have come up in that.

 

[cawacko]

I know you didn't state that, did not intend to imply you had... but you know you wanted to... you know you wanted to go off on a Bush sucks rant... somehow I doubt the recession would have come up in that.

You didn't even bring up 9/11 and the effect that had on the economy.

 

[evince]

Palin will Run.

She will run because the people paying her bills will insist she run.

The teabaggers love her and buy her books which gives her money to pay her bills.

They will Clamor for her to run and she will run ( third ticket I think) to keepp the money flowing in.

I think it will be third ticket because the Rs will back her publically but will seek to undermine her behind closed doors because they know she would be a disastor in the election. They will back her publically to avoid being set upon by her followers.

 

[christiefan915]

well golly gee at least the tea party members have moved on up from being called "teabaggers"..

We could call you "teepee-ers".

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You didn't even bring up 9/11 and the effect that had on the economy.

I know... Dung wanted a "bush sucks" rant and using anything that occurred during Bush's tenure that was out of his control would likely have been lambasted by Dung for being a 'Bush apologist' or some such nonsense. So I left it out.

I also left out the part Glass Steagall and the removal of the uptick rule played in this mess. Not to mention Greenspans ineptitude.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Palin won't make a third party run. No matter how bad Obama does, he's not going to poll the 30% or so that would be required for either the Republican or Palin to get a plurality (and thus, likely a plurality in a majority of states).

 

[evince]

She will run , not because she thinks she can win but because her meal tickets (teabag crowd) will insist she run.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The conservatives in the republican party need to press fiscal conservatism as the basis for their return to power. This country is in desperate need of leaders that understand that fiscal conservatism is our best hope for a free future.

Social conservatism, on the other hand, will meet with strong resistance. The idea that the gov't should meddle in personal lives goes against the core values of a freedom loving society.

I think you misunderstand the connection of conservative social values to conservatism. It is a core principle of this nation to respect and believe in something greater than man, the Creator who endowed us with inalienable rights! We can no more abandon that principle, than we can abandon the principles of fiscal conservatism. If we do, conservatism fails.

What you view as "meddling in personal lives" is actually standing up for moral principles of a civil society. We have every right as conservatives, to do that, and we shouldn't be ashamed of it or run away from it because the left has demonized it.

 

[Onceler]

I think you misunderstand the connection of conservative social values to conservatism. It is a core principle of this nation to respect and believe in something greater than man, the Creator who endowed us with inalienable rights! We can no more abandon that principle, than we can abandon the principles of fiscal conservatism. If we do, conservatism fails.

What you view as "meddling in personal lives" is actually standing up for moral principles of a civil society. We have every right as conservatives, to do that, and we shouldn't be ashamed of it or run away from it because the left has demonized it.

It's too bad you think this way. One thing you are correct about is that most people do believe something; most people have spirituality or religious beliefs. But you are over-the-top wrong in thinking that most people want that to be part of a political platform or party, or involved in government in any way. There is a huge range & variety of beliefs in this country, and most view it as a private matter, not something to be bandied about by politicians and used for political purposes.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's too bad you think this way. One thing you are correct about is that most people do believe something; most people have spirituality or religious beliefs. But you are over-the-top wrong in thinking that most people want that to be part of a political platform or party, or involved in government in any way. There is a huge range & variety of beliefs in this country, and most view it as a private matter, not something to be bandied about by politicians and used for political purposes.

You can think whatever your pathetic socialist ass wants to think, I am telling you the GOP better reconcile it's differences with social conservatives and find a way to incorporate social conservative values in their platform, or they are done as a viable political party in America. The GOP "moderates" can moan and bitch about it, the "libertarian" wing can drag their feet and claim it's 'meddling in personal lives' and continue to actively participate with the left in the war against social conservatives, but it will ultimately spell the demise of the party.

The principles of social conservatism are the cornerstone and foundation of Conservatism, and we better start recognizing that point again. Yes, we need to return to core fiscal conservative values too! No one is saying we need to turn the GOP into a bunch of Bible-thumping social conservatives, who ignore the fiscal conservative principles for the sake of "Compassionate Conservative" Christian-based moral values. That is what we had with Bush, a social conservative and fiscal liberal! There needs to be a balanced, articulate, well-reasoned platform, rooted and based in moral conservative principles as well as fiscal conservatism. We shouldn't apologize for this, we shouldn't make excuses for why we can't do this, we should be proud as conservatives to stand up for the principles of conservatism in every aspect.

 

[Cypress]

You can think whatever your pathetic socialist ass wants to think, I am telling you the GOP better reconcile it's differences with social conservatives and find a way to incorporate social conservative values in their platform, or they are done as a viable political party in America.

The GOP "moderates" can moan and bitch about it, the "libertarian" wing can drag their feet and claim it's 'meddling in personal lives' and continue to actively participate with the left in the war against social conservatives, but it will ultimately spell the demise of the party.

The principles of social conservatism are the cornerstone and foundation of Conservatism, and we better start recognizing that point again. .....

I totally agree.