This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 1, 2010 6:42 AM. The previous post in this blog was Wieners and losers. The next post in this blog is Ron Wyden is killing little old ladies. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, November 1, 2010

And now, a moment of prayer

Dear Lord, please fix it so that Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee for President two years from now. Amen.

Comments (17)

Thtat's probably the only way Obama would win a second term - running against an unelectable candidate.

Accept with another year of tea party favorites like Chris Christy and others making tremendous reform and progress the false caricature of her and them will only wither.
Just like Governor Dudley will not result in the bumbling mayhem BlueOregon has projected.
In that scenario the Palin candidacy or any other new Republican star will be sitting pretty.

Hopefully whatever deity you pray to will ignore that prayer tongue in cheek or not. Read the possible scenario of Bloomberg running as an Independent. With him in the race possibly nobody gets the Electoral College votes needed and it goes to the House of Representative with Boehner running the show... Hello President Palin!

Or the new Republican majority in the congress will bear the blame for protracted economic misery and no Republican candidate will be electable on the national level.

Please, be careful what you wish for.

False caricature? Please. No one has to paint an exaggerated, comical picture of people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell. They are doing a fine job all by themselves.

I'm all for it, but not for the obvious reasons. If Newt Gingrich can make noises about running in 2012, I'd like to draft another psychotic science fiction fanboy for the highest office. "Charles Manson in 2012: Because A Nation Of Freaks Deserves To Be Led By One." He can't do any worse than Palin at the job, and he might even be more coherent than her during the debates, too.

It's an interesting article in that the authors express so clearly a certainty that Obama would beat Palin in the general. But really that's not certain at all. Once we're all far enough down that road of course Palin could win.
The article is a really fascinating bit of hand-wringing over the prospect of a scenario wherein "moderate" Republicans have to vote for Palin, somebody they know in their hearts is an irresponsible dingbat whose disastrous presidency would be a foregone conclusion. They may hem and haw, but if she's their candidate, Republicans will vote for her. Seriously, they already did in the last election!

Straight from the FOX's mouth (FOX News that is):

This was Rove's full quote, which Chris Wallace read to Palin:

"With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American Calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office' . . . There are high standards that the American people have for (the presidency), and they require a certain level of gravitas."

"I agree with that, that the standards should be high for anyone who would ever want to run for president," Palin shot back. "Like, um, wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor, wasn't he in Bedtime for Bonzo -- bozo, something. . . "

I concur with gennop- Be careful what you wish for. At one point, George Bush Jr seemed as unelectable as Palin seems to day. Somehow, the Supreme Court and a fair amount of ballot box shennanigans proved me wrong. And again. Look where that got us.
If Im gonna pray..and as an atheist, not likely, it would be for a whole Congress of folks who realize the status quo is leading us down a perilous road, and things need to change asap.
liberal or conservative labels mean nothing when your ship is sinking.

George W. Bush was the son of a former President, filthy rich, backed by big oil, and able to get the press to give him a fair shake. Sarah Palin is a trashy beauty contest runnerup whom nobody in power likes, especially the media. She'd lose 60-40 to Obama. Please, please bring it on.

I agree with you Jack, a silver spoon goes a long way. But not always. But who would have ever predicted Jimmy Carter would ever become President.. but we know how that all shook out. I hate to put Carter and Palin in the same sentence, as I have infinitely more respect for the man from Plains, GA. Its just that stranger things have happened.
Imagine if the CIA slipped LSD in the water supply the week before election......

There's so much strange and dark stuff in SP's past -- she's unelectable. Don't get me started on that again.

Hg: Seriously, they already did [voted for Palin] in the last election!

Not quite. They voted for a ticket that included her as the VP candidate. And hoped to God that McCain's heart would keep on beating.

Not only is she not going to get elected -- he!!, she's unelectable -- but she is not even going to run. (Unfortunately for us Sadists For Sarah. I share the sarcastic prayer to see her on the spot in the spotlight and then, (as I read it said somewhere else today), fried crisp as an ant by sunshine through a magnifying lens.)

But nooooo, my sport in her pain is not to be.

- -

Somewhere it needs to be noted a basic, basic, fundamental thing going on (developing) in the Republican opposition to Republicans. What Media Matters calls (paraphrasing here), 'Rove vs. Palin vs. Mitt vs. Newt.' Republican extremist Tantaros, (sp?, whoever he is), called it "shooting inside the tent," by which he meant inside the fabled GOP 'Big Tent.'

What needs to be noted is the GOP dichotomy -- the existential and essential irreconcilable difference between 'social conservative' and 'fiscal conservative' -- the two parts joined in and dividing apart the Grand Old Party.

It's simple (if I don't digress into History ... or wherever it is I tend to drag out too much information from). And it is the basis for ALL the Republican vs. Republican conflicts and battles.

Since the beginning 'conservative' meant only 'fiscal conservative.' Rich a$$hole reclusive degenerates. The epitome of the genre was the bank president, someone singularly characterized by low-risk low-yield long-term investing, or Municipal Bonds / Treasury Bills no-risk investing. Financiers -- that was The Conservative, all about money and compounding interest, and there were very few of them, a perpetual political minority.

Then, around 1975, cable TV was invented. (Youngsters born after 1965 probably don't remember that, and school books don't tell about it.) Millions of subscribers paid 10, (20, 30, 50, 90 ...) dollars a month for a bundle of tv channels. In 1975 there were 8 channels containing ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, regional network (e.g. Metromedia Broadcasting), maybe Public Access channel, and ... and what? that's only 6, there are two extra channels, vacant. So began Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell rushing into the 2-channel vacuum to preach. 'Televangelism' -- the word and the act (the schtick), was invented.

With one aim: anti-abortion. Because for them the morality meanies, abortion was a hot button. [Repeal Roe v. Wade, 1974] was their only bumpersticker and as far as their political involvement went, i.e., nowhere.

When it was $10 from 10,000,000 subscribers for 8 channels each month, each channel got $1 and the cable operator got $2. Which was a $10,000,000 per month CASH FLOW to Pat Robertson low-production-cost preaching -- no matter whether ANYone watched that channel or NOT, just as long as everyone sent that monthly check in the mail.

That money pile made the Moral Majority. It made the Silent Majority. It made the Equal Rights Amendment blocked. It made blockhead Reagan president. It made Southern-Baptist twang-and-drawl revivalist evangelism a force to be reckoned with, although disrespected. It made the so-called 'social conservative.'

That group has one thing in mind, the faction for a Single Issue: anti-abortion. And relatedly: Who's having sex? With whom? Where? How often? How? nosey nosey sex-starved busy-body gossipers and rumor-lusters.

They know nothing about money, ways and means, revenues and appropriations; it's all 'tax and spend' to them, monosyllable words for their simpleton (non)sense of the world -- whatever 'infrastructure investment' means, they don't know, it's all simplistically what they call 'government spending.'

Their deal with the Devil is that they agreed to vote en bloc for traditional Republican 'fiscal' conservatives, and in exchange, quid pro quo, elected Republicans must stack the Courts to punish and purge hedonism or ribaldry -- 'immoral sin' you'll know when you see it, (else simply ask one of the moralizers) -- and, repeal reverse retard reject Roe v. Wade.

Well, it develops that the 'fiscal' conservatives spend a significant skim of the cream off the top of their piles of money on prostitutes and sexual flagrante, 'trophy' wifery, multi-marriages and estate-sharing divorces, and the like. The bane of religio-moralists.

While the 'social' conservatives, flirt-blushing hair-piling blouse-buttoned prim-and-proper virginal-sniffpecky bookkeeping register-balancers -- who were mortified rigid at the thought-fun of conjugal Caprice and Cavort, (the Doublemint Twins), but -- had no compunction about the Thou-Shalt-Not-Steal bit and looked to win Jackpot salvation, score the big Sting, swindle, embezzle, defraud, deceive, gold-plate their bathroom fixtures from whatever accounts of the company they kept. The bane of public-record investors and low-bid government contractors.

The 'Big Tent' myth was invented as picturing 'conservative' (constrained) money maniacs and 'conservative' (constrained) sex maniacs co-existing and getting along in common purpose. Which was pre-doomed prenuptial to divorce -- each half keeps wasting the other half's holdings.

The rift is widening beyond bridge-reach, now that the anti-abortion moralizing ('social') conservatives have stopped calling their sect 'Republican' (of 'fiscal' heritage) and started a new label, separate brandname: 'Tea-baggers.'

All of which is the basis of the juiciest bloodletting prospects for a 2012 GOP death-duel in the matchup of beauty-fool Palin vs. billionaire Bloomberg. (Both sides funded by cable TV subscribers. Or not, when the cable TV boycott starts spreading.)

Easy fix. Everyone who does NOT want Sarah Palin to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012, assure your party affiliation is Republican and vote for her opponent.

Clicky Web Analytics