Mark Shields: Palin Quitting As Governor Is Like Kennedy's Chappaquiddick
PBS's Mark Shields on Friday said Sarah Palin's decision to resign as the governor of Alaska is "like Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick."
This astonishingly came moments after he called Nancy Pelosi the most effective House Speaker in his lifetime on the most recent installment of "Inside Washington" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MARK SHIELDS, PBS: I will say this about Nancy Pelosi: the great CBS commentator Eric Sevareid said the boys run for high office to be something, the men run for high office to do something. I’ll change that to adolescents and grown-ups, and Nancy Pelosi, whatever anybody says about her, she has done, she has accomplished as Speaker, she has been a more effective Speaker than anybody in my lifetime. Forget, I mean, Newt, Newt Gingrich, nothing compared to her. This is a woman who rivals Tip O’Neill, Sam Rayburn, the great speakers of the House, but she became the face and the poster child to run against in 2010, and Republicans ran very effectively against her. And I think that is worth a study as to why she became such a lightning rod.
Imagine that. Pelosi just suffered one of the biggest Congressional election defeats in history, and Shields is praising her like she's a God.
To put the icing on the absurdity cake, Shields, when the subject of Palin came up, said:
She did have a pretty good night, and I certainly defend her, and anybody, endorsing a candidate not on the pragmatic grounds that they are going to win, but because you believe in their positions and don’t believe in her opponent's positions. That is why she presumably endorsed Christine O’Donnell against Mike Castle, a moderate to liberal Republican. But on the subject of Sarah Palin in 2012, one of the unspoken problems that she does have is her quitting as governor midway through her first term. It is like Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick. It was not a problem among Democrats. It will be a problem when she runs for president because it is a higher threshold for the office.
So resigning as governor to pursue other political endeavors is in the same league as drowning a woman and fleeing the scene of the crime?
That nobody laughed in Shields' face when he made this staggeringly stupid comment is beyond me.
Readers are also advised of the differing election results enjoyed by Palin and Pelosi this week.
Palin-endorsed House candidates went 37 and 15, her Senate candidates pending the outcome in Alaska went 6 and 4, and seven of her gubernatorial candidates also won.
No matter what anybody says, that's pretty impressive.
By contrast, Pelosi took one of the biggest drubbings of any House Speaker in history. And yet, Shields had nothing but praise for her and scorn for Palin.
Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oh, right, Mark....resigning
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:51am.
Oh, right, Mark....resigning as governor, leaving a woman to drown...what's the difference?
<bangs head on wall>
And gosh, Mark, I just don't know WHY Her Speakerness... (maybe that nickname I gave her is a clue)....became such a lightning rod....after all , she was "effective" in liberal terms, i.e. number of bills passed.
Those mean Republicans just had to have someone to polarize and they randomly chose her.
It had nothing to do with the fact that her "effectiveness" was in ramming through legislation that the people didn't want, by any means necessary. How could the peasants not appreciate her????
Well, Palin has still quit fewer elected positions than
Submitted by merly1 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:47am.
our beloved President Obama (state Senate, US Senate). And Palin was driven from office by the dirty politics that people were so tired of in this backlash, tsunami election......... Obama just wanted some more powerful job, and he thumbed his nose at the people who had elected him to his current offices in the state and US senate. Sweet ;o)
I agree almost incredible a
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:14pm.
I agree almost incredible a democrat cannot tell the difference between life and death..
that tells me it will take only a decison of life versus death before these clowns get the message, they are gone,
MB
Submitted by Seashell on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:02pm.
It had nothing to do with the fact that her "effectiveness" was in ramming through legislation that the people didn't want, by any means necessary. That is the "key" to her success: ramming through legislation especially the healthcare bill. The election showed that people didn't approve of her agenda and her methods which cost the democrats dearly by losing the majority. Pelosi managed to persuade (or bully) democrats in conservative states to sign off on legislation in which they knew their constituents would not approve and resulted in their losing their seats. Many had held these seats for years, and many (such as John Spratt in SC) had enjoyed the support of republicans as well as democrats because of his overall effectiveness in many areas. I have even voted for Spratt in the past because of the industry (and therefore jobs) he brought to the state, and he fought and won for us to keep Shaw Air Force Base here which not only is a major source of income for the state but a major source of pride for us. I talked to alot of people before the election and they hated not to vote for Spratt but his rubberstamping Pelosi's agenda this last year made it impossible for republicans to continue to support him. I am sure there are many other "John Spratt's" that lost there seats for the same reason all thanks to Pelsoi . Healthcare and other legislation that was rammed through will most probably be repealed. If not in the next two years, certainly after 2012 when a republican President is elected. I think that history will reflect that not only did Pelosi cost the democrats the majority in congress in 2010, but the Presidency in 2012 and it all for nothing because the legislation she pushed through was repealed or at the very least totally revamped. Therefore, Mr. Shield's statement:"...she has been a more effective Speaker than anybody in my lifetime." will be wrong.
What is he taking?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:53am.
I wanna know what he's taking when I feel like I want to delude myself from reality in the craziest possible way.(well, no, if I did that, I would be no better than they are)
You're right that it's a staggeringly stupid comment to say, but it's even more frightening the level of absolute ignorance and even education(lack of). My guess is the people that were there did not have CLUE ONE about what Chappaquiddick was about except Mark Shields.
Amazing.
-Jon
I don't know what show this
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:20am.
I don't know what show this was, but if it was on PBS, you can bet they ALL knew about Chappaquiddick.
However, I would guess they agree with Shields.
Shields is looking at this from strictly an "electability" point of view. He means Chappaquiddick wasn't a problem for Kennedy with Democrats, but they knew it would kill him nationally, in a presidential election. He's saying the same thing about Palin: Republicans won't care, but it will hurt her nationally.
Relevance
Submitted by pickersenior on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:37am.
Who the hell is Mark Shields?
And think of it
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:37pm.
he will never be made to feel as stupid as he and others in the media take the tea partiers for, despite no tea partiers having said something this dumb.
Mr Shields
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:57am.
If stepping down from an office is equal to what Ted Kennedy did at Chappaquidick, would you allow me to take you for a drive across a bridge?
The larger question here is:
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:24am.
The larger question here is: What does it say about Democrats that Chappaquiddick "wasn't a problem" for them? Approximately one presidential election cycle after the occurrence, the Democrats started treating it as "old news" and irrelevant; and they haven't stopped to this day.
That's when they weren't treating it as a tragedy that "happened" to Ted Kennedy!
And yes, the question is rhetorical.
Yet, I think that this is an admission from Shields
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:42pm.
that the public never felt quite the same way. That the dems could spin "old news" all they wanted but the American people never felt that a potential murder was.
I think that's the one sense that can save Shields' analogy, if her quitting her post is the "one thing that the public cannot forgive her for". However, even in that limited sense, it just points up the difference between forgiving a "quitter" and a "rich playboy (possibly murderer)".
I agree , motherbelt
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:13pm.
No criminal or immoral behavior by big Democrats seems to diminish their support of them. Look at Rangel, Frank, Spitzer, etc.
Kennedy was perhaps the most outrageous case, as Dems and MSM pundits eventually referred to Chappaquiddick as an unfortunate event in meteoric career of poor Teddy, as if the death of a human being due to his negligence was otherwise inconsequential.
In the mind of a Democrat,
Submitted by daddysyk on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:26am.
drowning a woman because you are a lush who was looking to score with a young woman is the moral equivalence to resigning early from an elected office. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
I cannot disagree with this guy completely
Submitted by Hermano on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:27am.
I understand what he is "trying" to say. Pelosi was very effective. They wanted Obamacare and they got it too pass the house by a gnat's eyelash. The objective was to minimize the damage they would have in the midterms. I would like to see how many of those who were spared from having to vote for it were spared this time versus those who, in less liberal enclaves, had to or decided to just follow the leadership.
As for the Chappaquiddick comment, if his intent was to suggest that Dems were OK with it and the general electorate was not, then how come Teddy never got the nomination? Seems to me that the Dems had a problem with it, otherwise he would have made it through the primaries. Obviously, there has to be a better analogy than this one. After all, if it is good enough for Palin, why wasn't it good enough for Massachussetts?
Hermano is Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
if his intent was to suggest
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:44am.
if his intent was to suggest that Dems were OK with it and the general electorate was not, then how come Teddy never got the nomination?He meant that Democrats knew that, and THAT's why he didn't get the nomination.
Me either, Hermano (see post below)
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:48am.
I think Pelosi was "efficient" but hopefully not "effective" in the long run.
Efficient = getting things done right.
Effective = getting the right things done right.
She ain't going to go quietly.
Wow...With the White house and Congressional supermajorities....
Submitted by merly1 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:43am.
Pelosi passed some things. Big Whoop. How is this in anyway surprising? By the time she leaves, her 4 year reign of horror: 5.3 trillion in NEW federal debt, 2 war surges, a big land war in the "graveyard of empires," doubling the unemployment rate, Dow may be down over 1000 pts,
unfunded healthcare legislation, and of course the 2010 election debacle. to Mark Shields and Hermano---Pelosi is the worst Speaker in the history of the Republic and it isnt even close!!!!!....wait, a few more...!!!!
But maybe that IS what she
Submitted by Hermano on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:05pm.
But maybe that IS what she wanted to do...and managed to do it while controlling the number of congresscritters who had to vote for it.
Hermano is Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
Another valid comparison
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:37am.
When it comes to Barack Obama's political power, the mid-term election of 2010 can be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and the Soviet Union's destroying the city of Berlin in WW2. Both heads of state lost considerable political power after each event.
I'd say the above is as valid as Shield's comparison.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Mark Shields and....
Submitted by NVRAT on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:41am.
I wonder if his pants ripped when he bent over to kiss Nancy`s feet?
Unfortunately Mark is right.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:43am.
As part of the Obama troika, Pelosi was extremely efficient. She rammed her shiite down our throats and up our barney with chilling speed, and no one could stop her!
Uncle Joe, Hitler, Mao, Castro, etc, would be extremely proud of what she accomplished. She did it in a representative republic without an armed revolution. They had to slaughter a few million people to get it done. That's probably still on her agenda, but it will have to wait till she can disarm us. Hell, they already included the "Civilian Defense Force" in the Obama care bill. You think they're kidding, people?
Now she's not going to shut up and go away after getting it shoved in her face by the electorate? That ought to tell you who the dedicated "revolutionaries" are. This troika lives and they will continue down this path until they don't! If someone doesn't pull her down soon, we will be addressing her as Czarina.
All conspiracies ain't theory. What the troika has accomplished ain't theory. It is fact. Get used to it, or destroy it.
... and as for Palin resigning being the moral equivalent of Teddy killing a girl? That ought to tell you what liberals think of the loss of life in the pursuit of their goals. Time to come heavy.
What a stupid old fart
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:44am.
First the most obvious question. Tell me, did anyone die as a result of Palin resigning from office?
And here's the main question for you Murk. Do you have any idea how much money you and your ilk were costing her and the state of Alaska in legal fees fighting all the trumped up allegations? Perhaps if all you geniuses hadn't been going after her and her family like rabid dogs she wouldn't have resigned office.
She has done much more for her state and the country by resigning. But really, you and your low life ilk choose to ignore the obvious. Keep the crap flying it only underlines your bias and lack of wisdom.
Yeah. I can see the comparison.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:59am.
She did crash the Alaskan Ship of State. She was drunk when she quit. Blind stinking drunk. Said take this job and shove it and walked out into the night and crashed the Alaskan Ship of State. The Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline Deal was trapped in the ship of state. She did not even try to look for it. Just stumbled away. Security went looking for her. She swam across the Wasilla river and snuck up to her hotel room. Next day she started calling around trying to find witnesses that would say she did not wreck the Alaskan ship of state. Then grabbed a lawyer and backfilled her resignation letter and made a speech to save her career while turkeys were being slaughtered behind her by the hundreds.
Oh is my memory fooling me again?
Will someone please produce a
Submitted by gadropout on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:04am.
Will someone please produce a show with five conservatives shouting down one liberal for once? All these panel shows, even those on Fox News, tend to have a lone moderate/conservative outnumbered by socialists four to one. That's if they have a conservative at all. I don't count Megan McCain, David Frum or the other jerks PBS, NBC, CBS et al claim to be conservatives.
Not quite but almost. I like
Submitted by buddyc on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:08am.
Not quite but almost. I like Palin but she should NOT have quit.
Kennedy is a scum and for what he did not only should he have been disqualified from public office but put in jail.
Resigning as Governor
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:26am.
Palin's resigning as governor can be viewed in two different ways. I think it was the perfect thing for her to do, if she wants to pursue her current career as political commentator and power broker. She can wield a ton of influence and make a bunch of money.
Politcially, it puts her in a tough spot. If she tries to get back in politics and fails, she will lose most of what she has built up in the last couple of years in her current role. She needs to keep the possibility open that she may run for something, but she weilds far more influence in her current position.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
agree. as a commentator and
Submitted by buddyc on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:31pm.
agree.
as a commentator and voice, she made the right decision. but as a future candiate is was a mistake. she needed to run for senate and serve successfully before running for higher office.
Yes it was smart for her to give up being governor for herself
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:18pm.
However, it also was smart for her state.
The libs were killing all her time and money and Alaska's money witch hunting and attempting to smear her.
Until you find a way to stop such behavior, a large enough group of morons can drive anyone out of town.
It's not her fault at all and people should really keep that in the forefront of their criticisms of her having left office.
Palin unelectable
Submitted by tribchet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:41am.
Agree with Kingfish1. No doubt Palin was a force in 2010. However, she should find a presidential candidate that she can support in 2012 and throw her energy into electiing him or her. Palin's negative polling with Independants (who will determine the '12 election) was high before she resigned as Alaska's governor. Like it or not she would be portrayed as a 'cut and run' candidate in the general election even though her pathway through the Republican primaries is negotiable. It will be Angle/O'Donnell deja vu if she gets the nomination. Palin is the great hope that Obama and the Democrats are clinging to for 2012.
Is Maxi Shields working for Tokyo Karl?
Submitted by kch50428 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:18am.
This is part of a Karl Rove disinformation/psyops campaign to destroy Palin as a candidate.
Rove needs to be driven from
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:30pm.
Rove needs to be driven from the Republican party.
Personally, I think he has reduced his own influence by half since he bad-mouthed Christine O'Donnell. He popped up on the TEA Party RADAR when he did that. They now see him as an enemy and a neo-statist. Anybody he endorses in a primary is going to be scorned by the TEA Partry wing of the Republican rank-and-file. Once this becomes clear to everybody, it will become a primary election kiss of death to be associated with Rove and candidates wil seek to avoid the ppearance..
Oh, good grief. One has to
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:08pm.
Oh, good grief. One has to support every last Tea Party candidate or else be driven from the party? Karl Rove has raised and spent millions in support of true conservative candidates getting elected, he doesn't have to make apologies to you for having his own opinions about some individual candidate's chances of being elected. For Pete's sake, statements like your's sound as nuts as the liberals suggest all the tea party members are. This drive for ideological purity as defined by some self-appointed thought police is totally out of control. I'm beginning to suspect that some here would call Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms "RINOs" if they were alive today.
It's the latest fad....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:32pm.
The Tea Party is IN! Old fogie Republicans are OUT!
Nevermind that a Tea Party candidate (cough-O'Donnell-cough) was a weak candidate...Rove should have supported her just because she was a Tea Party favorite?
I could be wrong, but I don't think Rove criticized her once she had the Republican spot on the ticket, did he? I thought he only criticized her when she was running against Castle.
The RNC may not have poured money on her, but maybe that's because they thought it would be a waste. Jim Geraghty of National Review said this in September:
O’Donnell, if nominated, will have (cough) an uphill climb in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans roughly 329,000 to 179,000.
Castle has consistently led all polls and his voting history suggests he will vote with conservatives 52 percent of the time or so. If Democrat Chris Coons is elected and votes in a pattern similar to Delaware’s other senator, he will vote the conservative position 12 percent of the time; if he emulates current Democratic senator Ted Kaufman, he will vote the conservative position 4 percent of the time.
Castle was a likely winner; now the Republicans have, instead of half a loaf, none.
MB sometimes it is better to
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:39am.
MB sometimes it is better to have none than half. God sent the people of Israel into teh desert for 40 years because they wanted more than God gave them. In all democracy worked becaue teh people of DE said they wanted O'Donnal amd they got her.
From my viewpoint the GOP leaders are at fault for not supporting her with experienced people. Now she may have rejected them, but there was no indication they tried to help her. Rove's initial "good will" says all I have to know.
"MB sometimes it is better to
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:57am.
"MB sometimes it is better to have none than half"
I was going to give you half a million dollars - but since you would prefer none to half, I'll honor your preference. Feel good about that?
Yes because I had none to
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:49am.
Yes because I had none to begin with, so thank you good friend for sparing me the burden of the money. LOL i would just spend it frivolously and probably give half to the government as they really need it.
mb, I don'tknow exactly who
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:50am.
mb,
I don'tknow exactly who some of these posters are or how long they have been conservatives, but they're acting like the crazy people at Kos who demand liberal purity - the ones who say Obama isn't going far enough to the left (a DINO?). I'm hoping it's immaturity or just excitement and it will cool off. It's good that people are fired up but it's not good when they begin to turn on good, loyal long time conservatives because they consider them not revolutionary enough - as they define it. Rove has been fighting to get Republicans in (including many, many, strong conservatives) far longer than Christine O'Donnell has been around. Yet, total loyalty to her has become a litmus test for what makes a "true" Republican. It's disturbing.
Chris its not that we want
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:56am.
Chris its not that we want the purity as much as to purge the RINO's. The real problem is that teh RINO's have partialy given us the problems we have now. And if we want to continue sliding into oblivion then just elect more RINO's, listen to teh GOP elites who push teh RINO's and dont help true conservatives.
So my view is sometimes a stay in the wilderness is needed to clarify teh mind. If it was good enough for jesus its good enough for me. Even Jesus had em in his midst in teh form of Judas.
motherbelt...you are mistaken about the timing
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:23am.
of Rove's criticism of O'Donnell. He unloaded on her on Hannity's show right after O'Donnell's primary win over Castle--a victory which made probable the Dems would hold onto a senate seat that had been ripe for plucking by the GOP.
The mad genius Rove was right as usual, even though he backed off his criticisms a bit after Rush announced that he--and he alone--would decide who was or was not worthy of being a Republican candidate (or words to that effect). Even General Rove must bow before Lord Limbaugh.
Jer
If Rush is right and he almost always is, why shouldn't...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:16am.
someone back off when they are wrong? Only Liberals don't back off when Rush points out and shows how wrong they are. Intelligent Conservatives always back off when Rush shows them the error of their ways. I always get a kick out of Liberals when they lie about Rush, attempting to show him in a bad light. It doesn't work, because 20 million plus listeners know the truth and can tell when Liberals are making stuff up. Liberals hate Rush because he tells the truth about them and they can't stand it, so they lash out at him with their lies. I agree with the wise person who said he'd rather have a 'true' Conservative lose, than have a RINO like Castle or Murkowski win. We can pick up the necessary Senate seats in the next election. About five should do it. Meanwhile, there will fewer 'Specter-like' RINOs around to gum things up.
Jer is right about Rove's first comment on O'Donnell
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:26pm.
Rove was visibly perturbed over O'Donnell's primary victory, saying that a Castle candidacy would've been a guaranteed Republican gain in Novmeber.
But he didn't blame Castle for an incompetent campaign. He was angry at the Tea Partiers who backed O'Donnell.
Rove is a Republican first, and a conservative second. I don't rust him anymore than I trust Dick Cheney.
Sometimes RINOs like Castle and Specter get elected ...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:24am.
and it is difficult to pry them loose. I'd rather have a Castle lose and take my chances on getting a good candidate the next time around. I understand he would have lost to the 'bald headed Marxist' anyway, being that it's Delaware.
You aren't paying attention here.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:30am.
To gain the Republican nomination in any state or local race when that nomination is contested requires a primary campaign. TEA Party activists and sympathizers who are registered Republicans represent a very large, if not the largest, voting block in the Republican Party. If you doubt this, please refer to the primary victories of Marco Rubio, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, etc., etc.
Karl Rove's comments were both impolitic and widely dissemminated by the MSM. They were made a prominent part of the MSM smear campaign aimed at Christine O'Donnell. A great many of the TEA Party pople heard these comments. His blatant display of party disunity did nothing but undermine the conservative cause and call into question what exactly he stands for. It should come as no surprise such people now hold Rove in contempt.
Simple question : Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater ever talk about the party's candidate for high office as Rove did O'Donnell?
plus if rove is indeed the architect
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:40am.
then he is the architect of the biggest spending admin BEFORE they were eclipsed by barry and his drunken sailors. rove is the archtect of EVERYTHING the tea party is trying to dismantle within the republican party. i think he is trying to protect his legacy. he was/is part of the problem not the solution. he can change his ways and get on the bus or get out of the way.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
It is really dumb
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:24pm.
to say things like "Anybody he endorses in a primary is going to be scorned by the TEA Partry wing of the Republican rank-and-file" .
Generally it is dumb to make generalities... What if he found or endorses the right person? Just cause he said it you would turn your back? You must think a bit harder on this and make sense here. Don't lose sight of the target (stopping all this madness in Washington).
Even more important don't behave like a lemming and use a bit more critical analysis than Karl likes him so he's no good.
Believe what you like. Our
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:21pm.
Believe what you like.
Our Republican Committtee has a liason who attends the TEA Party meetings in our area. I only repeat what was heard said there. Rove's extremely public and inopportune comments about Christine O'Donnell royally pissed those people off. They now hold him in less than low regard.
Our committee estimates that something on the order of 35-40% of the registered Republicans in our area are either TEA Party activists, attendees or sympathizers. We have evidence from our primaries here that the TEA Party people OWN the nomination process. If they nix a candidate, that candidate is not going to win the Republican Primary. A pre-primary Rove endorsement is now a kiss of death on any ruling-class Republican who is challenged in a primary here.
Of Course you.....
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:20am.
Can get results when you bribe, force your collegues to bend over backwards and break arm's & legs to get what you need or want passed shouldn't surprise anyone, but the comparisions of Pelosi to Kennedy's Killing a Women and fleeing the scene is only comparable to say Mansion, Bundy and other grusome crimes of the century except the only difference with Kennedy's is he had protection from the Media, and his fellow Democrats in Congress at the time that saved his ass from any pending charges.
Better Analogy
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:28am.
Comparing Pelosi to Al Capone would be a better analogy then comparing Palin to Ted Kennedy.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Disgusting
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:24am.
And that is all I will say, because I don't want to get banned.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny, disgusting is a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:44pm.
Denny, disgusting is a bannable word. The research and inquiries into the word have turned up the fact it is in fact a code word for many banned words. We know you are using the code words and therefore I shall see you get banned for life or the next time Obama screws up. Ohh damn Obama screwed up as I was typing this.
Dan
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:40am.
ssshhhhh, (we don't want people to know I'm talking in code!)
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
News Splash...
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:35am.
Wow. I've heard some stupid comments before, but Shields' raises the bar to a new level of ignorance. Equating homicide (a person who kills another person) to resigning from a job is over-the-top stupid.
Most effective House Speaker? Yeah, effective for Republicans, I guess. Please thank Nancy Pelosi for the 60+ House seats. What a hoot.
I'd accept a ride
Submitted by spepper on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:39am.
Old liberals certainly do reveal their accelerating dementia by what comes out of their mouths....
Why does anyone
Submitted by dr-go on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:39am.
listen to these people? Mark is a perfect example of talk first, think second. His distraction and separation from reality would be amusing if it wasn't so infectious within the liberal mind set. At this point it is merely boring.
Shields?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:43am.
Mark Shields is too old to still be having crushes on women even those as old as Pelosi.
Kennedy should have been convicted of several crimes and was not. He was not some person just walking by a scene and suddenly being thrust into a horror -- he created the horror.
Kennedy was not a great man. Kennedy was not even a good husband or a good father. Even his parents didn't see any good much less greatness in their own son.
Put yourself in the predicament of being on a deserted island or in a wartime foxhole and tell me Mark which person you'd rather have helping you survive -- Teddy Kennedy or Sarah Palin?
All Palin, All The Time
Submitted by Maestroh on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:48am.
I'm just curious - do liberal Democrats have ANY hobby other than keeping up with Sarah Palin? I'm serious, you can't see a show on MSDNC without Palin's daily doings in one of the first three segments. (And yes, Shields qualifies as a liberal Democrat - he used to work for 1976 Democratic nomination seeker Mo Udall).
For starters, even if Shields is trying to say (and here he might have a point) that that particular issue causes problems for Palin...to compare one resigning the governorship of a state to drowning someone while DWI ranks right up there with the constant Hitler comparisons we always hear. At least Palin didn't pull a Jim McGreevey ("I'm gonna resign because I'm ineffective but not until after the November election so the Republicans don't win the seat").
My suspicion? Palin figured it was a risk worth taking. How many frivolous "investigations" against her would have been cranked up to prevent her ascendancy? She simply cut off the need for any of those.
Yeah, but Palin didn't kill
Submitted by wiwf on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:48am.
Yeah, but Palin didn't kill someone and trying to use her political clout to get out of punishment.When Sarah
Submitted by bobbys on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:05pm.
When Sarah Palin entered a body of water she emerged with Salmon to feed the world, Make a real living and make her own way without a Family name.
When Teddy emerged from the water he was drunk, Fled like a coward, Waited till he was Lawyered up and used his family name to escape the punishmeant he deserved..
Teddy rode his Brothers coatails for his life with full support from the Dinosar media to cover his every drunken and sexual mess.
Sarah has had to endure every 2 bit comedian taking cheap shots at her daughters with girl like giggles from the leftest media..
I would much rather go
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:09pm.
I would much rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride the old sot, Ted.
Palin is awesome! She
Submitted by Van Halen on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:17pm.
Palin is awesome!
She stands for the same things many of us do:
God, guns, American oil, strong defense, no illegal immigration, less government, less taxes, less abortion.
The fact that she is still public enemy number 1 on the lists of the Progressive Liberals shows that she's doing the right thing. The Left reserve their worst attacks for who they fear the most.
Palin quit with a 55%
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:17pm.
Palin quit with a 55% approval rating. If you were getting your news from liberals/progressives, you would think she resigned due to Alaskans disapproving of her policies.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Pelosi was "effective" at what? GRANDSTANDING!
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:22pm.
"she has been a more effective Speaker than anybody in my lifetime"
Pelosi wasn't that effective of a House Speaker. Sure, the House passed a lot of bills in 4 years, but so what? Th House passes a LOT of bills every four years. The question is: how many of those bill actually became law? That's the test of an effective House Speaker, getting bills passed that actually become law. You know: making sure that the bills are authored in a way that both the Senate and the President would agree to make them into law. Nancy failed at that, time and time again. So much for her "effectiveness."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Exactly
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:48pm.
And of the bills that have been signed into law, how many will be thrown out in Federal court on Constitutional grounds? Some 18 states are challenging the health care reform act.
The Stimulus bill was little more than a collection of all the pork-barreling that Dems couldn't get through Bush. It failed to stimulate anything.
The Cap-and-Trade bill is so flawed and untimely that the Senate doesn't even want to touch it.
And in this past election, incumbent Dems distanced themselves from this Speaker.
But to a Beltway munchkin like Shields wouldn't notice that.
Now that's interesting!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:29pm.
Here is Shields, in the most forceful words he can muster, damning Kennedy for being a murdering drunk slob.
When the left compares one of their own to Sarah Palin, it's like a Muslim throwing a shoe.
What idiots they have in the MBM (Make Believe Media).
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:31pm.
What idiots they have in the MBM (Make Believe Media).
Palin resigns. She knows some might view that negatively and thus it would affect her future "political career" . . . BUT . . . she knows she can influence the 2010 elections *IF* she is free to travel the "lower 48" . . . AND . . . she wants Alaska to have a full-time governor who isn't spending all their time answering bogus ethics charges.
So, she made the decicision to resign against her own best intrests and for the best intrest of both Alaska and the USA. Isn't that the sort of character we want in a President? Looking out for the country and not themselves?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Or ---
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:17pm.
She quit her obligation to the Alaskan citizens in order to promote her celebrity and make a fortune .
Or --
Both.
If Palin was on a messianic mission as you claim, she would've explained it to the Alaskans when she resigned. Sincere or not, it might've seemed more rational than the excuse she did give them.
I hope she remains active on the national scene. But she can't get elected President.
Galvanic
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:21am.
She quit her obligation to the Alaskan citizens in order to promote her celebrity and make a fortune .Ah I see. As if she's the only politician to ever resign office. And making money is *so* terrible. (How dare she?) If Palin was on a messianic mission as you claim
Messianic? LOL. Are you PopTech's Cousin or something? it might've seemed more rational than the excuse she did give them.
Didn't seem rational to you ? What a shock! /Sarcasm Off But she can't get elected President. Riiiiiiight . . . just like Reagan was unelectable.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I never said she was the only
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:30am.
I never said she was the only politician to resign her office. How many politicans have gotten elected to an executive office after resigning? I don't know of any.
You're the one who said she resigned her office to save the country, not me. If that isn't messianic, I don't know what is.
If you'd read my posts on this thread, you'd have known that I have no problem with her making money. As I wrote earlier, she made a decision on what's best for her. Making money is fine, but she's stuck with the stigma of resigning from the governorship, and that won't wash with most Americans.
You're quite mistaken about Ronald Reagan's resignation from his governorship like Sarah Palin. He never resigned it. And that's the difference between Reagan and Palin.
Galvanic
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:11am.
If that isn't messianic, I don't know what is.
Saving the whole world/all of humanity would be "Messianic".
As I wrote earlier, she made a decision on what's best for her.
What would have been best for her political career would have been staying as Governor, and as you keep reminding us she resigned.
He never resigned it. And that's the difference between Reagan and Palin.
I never said he resigned. I said people were saying in '76 and '80 that he was unelectable. Just like you are saying now about Sarah Palin.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
There're more sides to
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:56pm.
There're more sides to Palin's life than her political career, and she certainly weighed them all to make the decision she did. That decision was what she felt was best for her.
Had she served out her complete term as governor, her political future with regards to the White House would certainly have been better. She certainly has a promising career in politics as she's demonstrating now, but she can't get elected to the Presidency.
You compared her electability to that of Ronald Reagan. But Reagan had at least one advantage that Palin no longer has: he never resigned his governorship.
Regardless of how much I like Palin and despise Obama, if she were to run against him today, she loses. She's been subjected to unmerciful personal attacks from every direction, and she's stood up amazingly well to them, but she wouldn't beat Obama today, and she wouldn't beat him in 2012, when younger Obama voters -- who stayed home in 2010 -- will show up again.
"Unelectable"
Submitted by fastfood on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 5:45pm.
I believe it was Mondale and Ferrarah that coined that phrase right before the "Great Speaker" stomped them into the dirt in the 80's election. :-))))))))))
Mr. Shields was clearly
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:36pm.
Mr. Shields was clearly drunk when he said this...
If quitting half way through
Submitted by Snappy on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:42pm.
If quitting half way through a governorship will haunt Palin like Kennedy's Chappaquiddick incident then we can appearantly expect to see Palin a very influential and esteemed member of her political party. A mover shaker and crafter of policy for years to come. a virtual "Grizzley of the Senate" to be.
Mark Shields is an idiot and should be fired for voicing his opinion and compairing someone not finishing a term to murder. Plain and simple, he needs to be givin the ole Juan Williams heave ho.
I think Palin will be a factor in both . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:36pm.
. . . the GOP and conservative politics for years to come.
Her charisma and fund-raising ability will steer the GOP more rightward, and the old-timers who've been in Washington too long will be threatened.
I wonder how he would have
Submitted by fastfood on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 5:57pm.
I wonder how he would have been treated,
let alone been regarded, had he been a Republican?
Filling the Gap
Submitted by xraynova on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:56pm.
Shields: "But on the subject of Sarah Palin in 2012, one of the unspoken problems that she does have is her quitting as governor midway through her first term. It is like Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick."The LWP obviously felt an urgent need to fill the gap caused by the inavailability of illogical rantings from olbermann. To the extent that shields' irrationality compensated for a missing olbermann, he did a great job.
Shields appears to be holding up as well as can be expected, during this current post-election prozac shortage in LWP strongholds.
Say Hello to Senator Palin?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:01pm.
"It is like Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick."
Does that mean she'll have a life long career as a Senator?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
obama quit senator job
Submitted by right of way on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:47pm.
why is it when palin quit the governorship it's a bad thing, but when obama quit his job as senator to run for president it's ok?
Double standard
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:50pm.
It's always okay for Democrats to do whatever they want.
Republicans, not so much.
Because he didn't quit his Senate job to run for POTUS
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:40pm.
And Palin didn't quit her job to run for anything.
Only a liberal
Submitted by sam12663 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:47pm.
could equate the taking of a life to resigning from office and look straight faced about it.
This guys gets paid for his commentary? Only on PBS.
What is this?
Submitted by theprofessor on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:53pm.
..bizarro comparison day for liberals.
Palin/ Kennedy, Olberman/Juan WIlliams, chicken egg/human fetus....I've read them all within the last hour.
Obama is the democrats
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:54pm.
Obama is the democrats Chappaquiddick .
Ted Kennedy only had a half-dozen more terms
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:14pm.
after he drowned Mary Jo Kopechne (least you can do is use her name). So, is he saying that Sarah Palin leaving the governor's mansion will assure her another 4 decades in politics? If so, I think I agree.
Ted Kennedy never ran nationally after Mary Jo's demise; that is true. But he sure had a long political life with the people of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Dennis Prager
Kennedy thought he could put it behind him
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:09pm.
In 1980, Kennedy thought that enough time had passed since Chappaquiddick that he had a shot at getting the Democratic nomination from Carter, but he was wrong. Public polling indicated that a majority of Americans thought him unsuitable for the Presidency.
I believe that Kennedy never appreciated the severity of his misdeeds beyond the political context. He was a rich boy, the youngest of four spoiled rich boys, and his misbehavior and messes were always cleaned up by the family's staff. I think he went to his grave wondering why anyone held him accountable for the death of Kopechne.
I agree with Shields to a point regarding Palin
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:39pm.
While there are no moral equivalencies between Palin's resignation and Kennedy's crime, the political impact nationally is similar.
Kennedy's cowardice demonstrated that in a crisis, he was a gutless, self-centered little rich boy. He remained popular in Massachusetts and among liberals thanks to his family name and his leftwing politics, but most Americans could never shake the knowledge of his deed. They could not see him as a President.
Palin's resignation is in no way equivalent, but it left a similar imprint with regards to the White House. While I admire a lot about her and her influence, she resigned from her governorship citing the distractions of political attacks against her. OK, that's her choice. But how would the pressure be any less in the White House? People will logically conclude that if Palin felt the need to resign as governor of Alaska, she's likely to do it as President.
This is why Palin worries the GOP seniors. They welcome her ability to muster enthusiasm from the grass roots, but they know she will lose in a Presidential election. Her popularity may very well garner her the GOP nomination, however, and this worries them.
Can she get elected to other offices in Alaska? I don't know. I assume the answer is Yes.
But as I maintained on NB the day after she resigned, her diffiuclt decision eliminated any shot she had at the White House one day.
She left
Submitted by NDanielson on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:01pm.
her state in fine hands with the hand over to Sean Parnell, who easily won re-election. I do not believe she would have left otherwise.
It doesn't matter
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:33pm.
The people of Alaska elected her to serve out her full term, and she resigned.
People will wonder if she'd do the same as President.
So, since Obama resigned as a senator to run for president
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:42pm.
Is it reasonable to worry that he would do the same thing for some international office that he might want to hold - maybe in the UN or the EU or something like that?
I don't follow your logic
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:07pm.
As I recall, Obama didn't resign his Senate job until he was elected to the Presidency. He can't hold two offices.
My worry about Obama was that, having no experience at running anything, he'd prove to be a disasterous President. I think recent history has borne out those fears.
As for international office, there is no higher or more powerful office than President of the United States. No one who has held it or who will hold it, would resign it except under Nixon-like conditions.
Palin quit, and like it or not, that's part of her legacy.
Galvanic,
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:17pm.
It appears from your answer that you do understand my logic, you just don't agree with it, which is fine with me.
As to a higher office than the president, it's obvious from Obama's behavior that he doesn't share your (and my) view that there's no higher office than the President of the United States. Given his penchant for minimizing the US' importance in the world and apologizing to anyone outside our borders, it's easy to draw the conclusion that he would consider an international position a higher one.
Really?
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:20pm.
I don't see where it's easy to come to your conclusion.
There is no higher office than being President of the United States, unless you think being the UN Secretary General is a promotion. I'm sure Obama doesn't.
Yes, really
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:20am.
So, you don't arrive at the same conclusion I do.. fine. I'm not here to change your mind.
You sound a lot like Jer.
I doubt Jer would agree with you . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 2:45pm.
. . . but so be it.
I'm a conservative (leaning libertarian) rooting for the destruction of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, which are corrupted beyond repair. I just happen to be slightly more favorable to the GOP than the DP because the Dems are taking us down a more destructive path.
The Tea Party movement is inspirational because its grass roots outrage impacting the national political stage. I hope it only gets stronger.
Galvanic...You didn't hear?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:15pm.
Scuba Dude has diagnosed an "Oppositional Disorder" syndrome, i.e. I don't agree with anybody. I'm considering seeking a second opinion from Dr. Sam, but I never agree with him either. :-)
Jer
Supreme Court Justices
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:53am.
"There is no higher office than being President of the United States..."
Actually, there's 9 of them , and they're called Supreme Court Justices. They are the most powerful positions in America, as they have the power to overturn any law, change any policy, and make decisions that effects the entire country, whether on a federal, state, or local matter, with a simple majority, something even Congress or the President can't do. That makes Supreme Court Justices the most powerful position available.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If you say so
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 2:28pm.
I don't know if anybody will agree with you.
Since there are 9 justices, no one justice has the power. It takes at least 5 to make a ruling.
The Supreme Court is a Constitutional check on executive and legislative power, but they can only act on the cases brought before it.
The President has the authority to apply military force. I don't know what gets more powerful than that.
i
y
The key is why she resigned
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:57pm.
The key is why she resigned and if you really believe she would resign the Presidency. Only the truely ignorant or partisan or well I could go on ... would not understand what the right thing to do was.
I don't think she'll resign the Presidency . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:24pm.
. . . because she'll never be President.
She claimed that she was resigning her office because her opponents were consuming too much of her Administration's time and energy with politically-motivated attacks, and leaving office was in the best interest of Alaska.
But as I recall, Alaskans weren't asking her to leave. The resignation came as a complete surprise.
If the heat got too much for her in Alaska, the White House "kitchen" is definitely not her cup of tea.
Fame and fortune beckoned, and she quit to take advantage of it. Does it make her a bad person? No. An opportunist? Sure. But America is the land of opportunity, so I can't fault her for taking advantage of an opportunity.
But her choice makes her unelectable to the Presidency. It's a much tougher job than being Governor of anything, and Americans won't elect a person who has quit under less pressure.
The "right thing to do" would've been to hold her ground and fight for Alaska. That's what voters elected her to do, and she walked out on them.
Palin's resignation was the right thing for her, but not the right thing for Alaska.
Obviously what we have here
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:58pm.
Obviously what we have here is a failure to communicate and your irrational dislike of Palin clouds your judgement. The fight was not for Alaska, the fight was a vendetta, successful, against Palin. it was not stopping, Alaska was taking the brunt of the attacks through costs and the time and effort of the governor. Palin saw the best thing to do to stop the baseless attacks would be to resign and leave the state in capable hands.
And you know what, they stopped and the state is doing great without Palin as she did leave the state in good hands. So she did do the right thing and all parties benifited from it.
The difference in being President is that stupid baseless unending lawsuits are dismissed out of hand and only the real gritty ones are ushered through.
If Palin is elected I will laugh in your face.
You've destroyed you're own argument
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:54am.
You and I agree that she quit in order to stop the lawsuits that were tying up her Administration's time and resources -- a point I explicitly made earlier.
And you say that it was the right thing to do.
So, if she were President, and came under even more intensive attacks consuming even more resources, would she resign? After all, as you note, it would be the right thing to do since she'd be doing it for the good of the government.
Before she resigned her office, no one expected her to quit before her term was up. Once she resigned, it removed the doubt.
It's a stigma she can't overcome.
Yes
Submitted by NDanielson on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:02pm.
I agree with those pointing out your dislike of Palin, being able to cloud your judgement. The circumstances under which she resigned is relevent, and she will easily be able to remind the electorate of the vitriol, hate and defamation aimed at her AND her family. The electorate may come to despise the LSM by the time Palin would be a contender for the office. The electorate may be ready for pay-back by then, too...Sarah could be the perfect middle finger.
She will point to the cost in time and money that the state was losing to defend against those that did not have Alaska's best interests in mind, and will be able to point out that she did have Alaska's interest in mind by pointing to Sean Parnell, his work for Alaskans, and his re-election. She will be able to say that this hand-off of power would have come earlier had she won the VP seat, so what is the difference??? How do you conclude that is was for her and not Alaska???
Finally, as far as being attacked and sued as president, she can't be sued while in the office of the president, so she would be able to focus quite well on the job of the office of the president. And with her experience and love of country, her focus would allow her to run circles around the socialist incompetent who is in the office currently. His wife could go back to despising America, and hopefully quit pretending to be American all together.
The difference is that she didn't become VP; she quit
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:25pm.
And a President can be sued while in office. Presidents can't be personally sued for carrying out their role, but they can be sued for any number of things while in office. Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones, and eventually settled out of court.
Kenya
Submitted by xraynova on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:28pm.
Don't be surprised to find him running for, and being elected as president of Kenya.
... and yes, he'll have no problem showing them his birth certificate.
she had a legitimate reason the press won't explain
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:15pm.
Governor Palin resigned instead of committing financial suicide. The pissed off GOP that got caught breaking the law and/or ethics rules joined up with the Dims in Alaska and brought lawsuit after lawsuit against her. One after another was thrown out of court or decided in her favor.
The problem was that her family was looking at over a half million dollars in legal costs with more on the horizon. The bastards deliberately tried to bankrupt her and her family. They told her flat out that it would keep on coming. After she sought help from the Attorney General and the courts she found she was swinging in the wind all by herself. A strategic retreat was the intelligent thing to do.
You won't find that in the LSM.
I agree with you but..............
Submitted by Seashell on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:45pm.
I agree with you in regards to her leaving the state in good hands, but I believe that Galvanic is right. Palin might could get the GOP nomination, but in the general election independents and right leaning democrats would be skeptical at best.
There are no right leaning
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:02pm.
There are no right leaning democrats and the key is to communicate and overcome the LSM. As far as Palin is concerned I feel she would do a fantastic job, unless of course you would rather have McCain in there or some other RINO. If A RINO is going to act like a socialist and give away our country then why not vote fopr a socialist?
She might make an excellent President . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:49pm.
. . . but she will never get that chance.
We can talk about the "true story," "right thing to do," and the injustice of nasty politics all we want.
But it doesn't change the situation.
Sure she will
Submitted by griv on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:28pm.
and she'll get elected. First we have 2012 to scrape the Obama off our shoe and then 2016 President Palin will be elected.You want to be negative, go find Olbermann.
griv---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:39pm.
Galvanic is one of the most fair-minded posters I have seen at NBs.
While I do not necessarily agree with him reference Palins in-un-non electability factor, Galvanic is, nonetheless, merely being brutally honest about her chances.
By pointing out Palins negatives (which all politicians have), or , if you prefer, listing items that may hurt her chances at becoming POTUS, he makes me pay close attention, because I sincerely like Palin and what she represents.
While some Palin admirers may consider Galvanic as being negative towards her, paying attention to what he is posting shows he refers to what he believes to be negative political factors relevant to Palin, not personal ones.
Galvanic is showing open-handed honesty, not negativity.
The most personable, intelligent, and experienced candidate ever could easily be knocked to the sidelines by adverse poltical circumstances, real or imagined.
MD
Dan
Submitted by Seashell on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:26pm.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't vote for her. If she gets the nomination, I will. My point is that I'm afraid that independents and especially democrats (as in Reagan democrats) probably won't vote for her because they have been brainwashed by the "LSM" as you appropriately put it. She has been maligned and ridiculed so badly (and unfairly) that I don't think she could overcome it. Personallly, I would like to see DeMint run.
In the past two tears we have
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:55pm.
In the past two tears we have witnessed a few miracles, nay more than a few. Brown elected in Mass, Florida elected Rubio and Alan West in chad country, and Republicans took more seats since 1936. The interesting ideas behind your premise indicate if you were in charge we would still be cowtowing to the Democrats well into the next century.
Dare to be exceptional and believe teh impossible.
that's true
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:19pm.
If the true story of the crap they pulled on her in Alaska with the phoney lawsuits was ever really told to the public I think her baggage would be left behind. Until then (then being about the time Hell freezes over) she'll have that hanging around her neck. They have belled the cat.
She can still be what she is now, a fund raiser and a hell raiser for the GOP. She's good at it, a real king maker.
Who would have been more influential in the 2010 campaign?
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:48pm.
A Sarah Palin tied up in Liberal lawsuits preventing her from doing her job as governor or a free Sarah Palin working to help get 'Conservatives' elected. Hindsight is beginning to show that she made the right decision. I understand she has done alright financially too. (Books, speeches and TV contracts.)
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by griv on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:28pm.
Yes sir!
I guess
Submitted by NDanielson on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:57pm.
this is this clown's way of saying that Governor Palin would make a great senator. Awwww.
I bet she can drive a car
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:25pm.
I bet she can drive a car better than Kennedy.. she would have both hands on the wheel and one hand wouldn't be trying to fondle a bottle of whiskey or Mary Jo.
Mark Shields was probably in the back seat with Mary Jo, but expecting a disaster wore a life vest as Kennedy drove, fondling Mary Jo.
Barney Frank had yet to decide guys or girls and was in the trunk.. with an inflatable doll he used to save himself from drowning.
He is same kind of pig Kennedy was..
Forgive me but the primary
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:58pm.
Forgive me but the primary constitutional purpose of Congress is to pass budgets and appropriations for the fiscal year. Once that is done, it can get to its other Section 8 duties and responsibilities. Please tell me how the most 'effective Speaker' in Shields' 60 year lifetime (which would include Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, Newt Gingrich) failed to pass any budget or appropriations bills this year? That would be like a judge not deciding any cases for the year, but only writing out progress reports and other administrative paraphenalia. She not only failed in her primary responsibility but she failed her secondary duty to not pass bills she hadn't read, and to not pass bills the public her voters were vehemently opposed to. Imagine if a Board of Directors had passed resolutions rejected by more than sixty percent of its shareholders? Pelousy and her socialist hordes would be calling for their imprisonment and expulsion from the corporation. But she and her fellow socialists can do this to the public and she thinks she deserves another leadership vote approval. Chutzpah!
You're exactly right
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:54pm.
Failing to pass the FY2011 budget and failing to address the expiration of the Bush tax cuts before adjourning was totally irresponsible. Shields seems ot have overlooked this.
Bingo, eagle!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:56pm.
I'm still trying to figure out how the H this congress got away with not passing a budget!
Demoncrats and the compliant
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:22pm.
Demoncrats and the compliant LSM. need there be more.
WTF?
Submitted by FishFearMe on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:06pm.
WTF are these people smoking and can I have some? Good Gawd!
Anyone who says Palin is
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:06pm.
Anyone who says Palin is unelectable wasn't around to see Dick Nixon rise from the ashes and win two terms, one by a landslide.
Only Sarah's abilities and campaign would decide whether she is electable.
Us political junkies don't realize how thin the information that most people base their voting preferences on is. It's more of a feeling than a logical decisiion. Besides when there is an incumbant it has more to with who they don't want than who they do want
. Can Sarah beat obama? Sure why not? IF..... obama's continuing Presidency is viewed as the more negative of the two choices then the challenger will win.
This is why we have so many negative political ads. Voters aren't too keen on politicians anyway so they vote for the least bad. So it behooves a candidate to make his opponant smell as bad as possible. Hey!!! That's exactly what they have been doing to Sarah for two years and it's had some real success. You can tell that by just reading many of the doubts about her from conservatives. But you may counter, she does have some qualities that could be better. Well consider that John Kerry almost was President and Joe Biden is Vice-President and in my book Sarah outshines them two babbling blowhards by a long shot..
Nixon lost elections, but he never resigned -- until . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:01pm.
. . . he as already President and facing a likely impeachment.
I would prefer Palin over virtually everyone holding Federal office in Washington today, but that doesn't change her chances for being President.
It's about what is, not what could be.
ahhhh... but you missed my
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:42pm.
ahhhh... but you missed my point. Most voters don't vote for a candidate as much as they vote against a candidate.
Nixon beat Humphrey because of Humphreys perceived weaknesses at home and abroad. Reagan beat Carter because of Carters perceived weaknesses. George Bush I beat Dukakis because of Dukakis's weaknesses. Bill Clinton and Ross Perot beat George Bush I because of Bush's perceived weaknesses. GWB beat both Gore and Kerry because they were both perceived as weak. Obama beat McCain because, well you may see a pattern here. In almost every election it is the candidate who is perceived to be the less desirable loses.
So whether Palin would lose can't be known until she is actually nominated and runs. If obama is in such a deep hole that Sarah looks better then she wins.
We just had a Wave election. Is that because Republicans put up nothing but stellar candidates? Of course not. Any candidate with a D attached to them were at a disadvantage automatically.
I can tell you where Sarah's biggest problem with getting elected is. It's from Republicans who will not support her and Republicans who will work against her winning.
Yes there is a war within the Republican Party and it has been going on since Goldwater's time back in the early sixties. It's between the Good ol' Boys (used to be called the Rockefeller wing) and the Conservative populists. The upstart Conservative populists are not popular with the 'Country Club Republicans because they don't follow the dictates of their betters. Reagan was not completly accepted by those who felt he was too 'down home' and his Presidency was too independant from the true power circles.
I disagree with your assessment . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:13am.
. . . because I think there are far more factors involved in elections. Your theory, for instance, doesn't explain why Bob Dole lost to Clinton in '96 when the latter's popularity was down and he'd lost the Congress in '94.
Palin has one weakness to overcome: she resigned her executive office. And that's what will keep her from getting elected President.
What moron(s) would not vote
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:13am.
What moron(s) would not vote for Palin because she resigned? She left office still popular in Alaska and without any serious allegations dogging her. How does this actually hurt her, other than people saying it will?
All things equal, maybe it's a problem then. However, if she were up against Obama right now, she wins.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I won't vote for Palin because she resigned
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:35pm.
I admire her. I like her biography, and I like how she's shaken up the political landscape. I hope she continues to stir the pot.
But I won't vote for her because (a) I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats, and (b) she's resigned from an executive office.
oh yes Mark, they're absolutely the same
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:10pm.
Taking a strategic retreat in the face of a million dollars in legal costs from dozens of phoney lawsuits is exactly the same as not getting to be a presidential candidate after killing your mistress. Absolutely the same. No doubt about it. In the public's mind there's a full equivilence.
"Oh my, what a maroon." B. Bunny
BTW resigning as Governor
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:36pm.
BTW resigning as Governor after catastrophic financial losses caused by demcorap dirty tricksters is not even in the same ballpark as killing a young woman, fleeing the scene and lying to the police about the incident.
How much further left can they go?
Submitted by goldenthroat on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:37pm.
PBS's Mark Shields on Friday said Sarah Palin's decision to resign as the governor of Alaska is "like Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick."
This astonishingly came moments after he called Nancy Pelosi the most effective House Speaker in his lifetime on the most recent installment of "Inside Washington".
This is just another left-coast, bleeding-heart, "do as I say, not as I do" socialist knucklehead that has gone completely over the edge! Is it any wonder there are calls now for the defunding of the Progressive Broadcasting System and National Progressive Radio, the firing of Juan Williams not withstanding? They took such a hit on Election Day that their liberal heads are still reeling from the blow!
This asinine comparison is so far out in left field it makes me wonder what Shields was smoking before the broadcast.
"Inferior people should not be employed." - Firesign Theatre
This is hilarious
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:45pm.
Everybody's got an opinion about Palin's chances, and it always seems to boil down to her resignation from the Governor's office.
It's not like she promoted $50 buck abortions like Mitt Romney did, but there is no small collective chomping at the bit to tell us why Palin is unqualified.
Hi cool Yeah I don't
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:56pm.
Hi cool
Yeah I don't get it' She has weathered unrelenting criticism with a smile. She kept John McCain from being crushed in the Presidential election. She has revitalized a sorry excuse for a Republican Party and just helped create a Republican House Majority that has saved us from a socialist take-over.
But I guess resigning a governorship of Alaska is a personal stain that no mere mortal can overcome.
Yep,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:33pm.
I had to call into a Right local radio show because of the bashing they were giving Palin. And I told them the same thing. They bought up Rove, and I told them Palin was supporting conservitive canidates, (well other then McCain) while Rove was ridiculing them. Who for one second thinks Rove is pursuading more folks then Palin?
I heard Palin say that she was going to help any Conservative that runs for POTUS! Me too, what do want to bet Rove backs the Rino?
if the only tool you have
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:43pm.
Rove is a strategist for winning elections but he doesn't understand governing or have a philisophical interest in policy consequences beyond election consequences.
He would naturally prefer a candidate more to the RINO set of the scale because he wants to 'market' a candidate with the widest appeal.
The disasterous New Tone and lack of a challenge to Bush's critic's led us to where we were in 2008. I'm sure the lack any political push-back was the belief that they didn't want to alienate any potential voter. But instead they let media create a narrative so negative that only the rise of the Tea Party and folks like Sarah Palin were Republicans able to disconnect the despised image of George Bush from the Republican Party which then paved a way for the recent takeover of the House.
Sinking to new depths
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:33pm.
This clip of Shields should be saved to be played over and over, his quote repeated again and again, in ads or otherwise, whenever Palin's resignination comes up should she run for office again.
WHENEVER it is even brought up in conversation, the dispicable crassness of the left, exemplified in the moral equilivancy, the stark contrast between the drowning/suffocation of Mary Jo and Gov. Palin's resignation in the face of frivilous harassing lawsuits, should be emphasized again and again.
There are no depths to which liberals will not sink.
'Maxie' Shields is dumb, but that has to be one of the...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:36pm.
dumbest comments ever made by someone of his repute. Sanchez and Olbermann got fired for what they did. How does this guy keep his job? Killing someone in a drunken stupor does not compare with what turned out to be a wise decision for Sarah Palin and the state of Alaska. Liberals were harrassing her to the point of not allowing her to do her job and now she gets to harrass them. As evidenced by their screeching and squawking, she's doing a good job.
Mark Shields needs to lay off
Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:08pm.
Mark Shields needs to lay off the crack. If this is what passes as "intelligent" in left-wing circles, it's no wonder why we have an idiot in the White House.
The only thing Sarah has
Submitted by kangaroo on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:44pm.
The only thing Sarah has murdered, are the hopes of the demoncrats holding office for the next 10 years!! booya
"When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on"--Thomas Jefferson
Too bad about Mr. Shields
Submitted by chuckk on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:34am.
I was a fan of his once. His views used to be quite interesting, especially on Friday nights' PBS show. Too bad he's lost his intellectual honesty and integrity.
Maybe 40 years ago
Submitted by griv on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:26pm.
or more.
Oh Really?
Submitted by lkotur on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:15am.
And how many bodies were left in the governors office?
What a buffoon!
Bing...bing...bing!
Submitted by goldenthroat on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:28am.
We have a winner, Ikotur! You knocked that one out of the ballpark!
"Inferior people should not be employed." - Firesign Theatre
Mark panty Shields
Submitted by griv on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:25pm.
I'm surprised he hasn't choked on his on bile.