Now here's quite a "twist" this evening.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ntial_can.html

Check out the poll on their site, 54% say Palin is the best choice.

I don't know about y'all but I think nominating Palin is the fastest way to re-elect Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/nydn/poll...e=view+results

Check out the poll on their site, 54% say Palin is the best choice.

I don't know about y'all but I think nominating Palin is the fastest way to re-elect Obama.
Originally Posted by oshins

No kidding! I'm not voting for her.

Check out the poll on their site, 54% say Palin is the best choice.

I don't know about y'all but I think nominating Palin is the fastest way to re-elect Obama. Originally Posted by oshins

I completely agree, though before Katie Couric's hatchet job three years ago on Palin, most people respected (or feared) Sarah's charisma. Ironically, Couric killed her own career when the truth came out about that interview's incredibly biased editing (even Rodram would have to concede Couric's craziness). But now, Palin is a gadfly and a T.E.A. party kingmaker. She won't win the nomination, and I doubt that she'll pursue it.

What makes me laugh/cry are the hypocritical feminists who decry her. Palin is an uberfeminist. Maybe so uber that she scares the hypocrite feminists.

As for the poll, I'd bet it's a push by some left-out group to move polls again.

As for the poll, I'd bet it's a push by some left-out group to move polls again. Originally Posted by Gladman

To me, this sounds like BS. Thousands have taken the poll... its now at 56% for Palin... Lets just say that to me, your above quote seems ridiculous in the extreme. Maybe Elvis told them to vote that way.

The other thing the poll tells me is that Paul and Huntsman are screwed. More people have voted for 'None of the Above', than them.

To me, this sounds like BS. Thousands have taken the poll... its now at 56% for Palin... Lets just say that to me, your above quote seems ridiculous in the extreme. Maybe Elvis told them to vote that way.

The other thing the poll tells me is that Paul and Huntsman are screwed. More people have voted for 'None of the Above', than them. Originally Posted by oshins

Ron Paul, though I like Libertarian ideas, can't win in the age of television. Huntsman is loads smarter than Obama but has about as much passion on camera (Rodram, check out some of the Dem loyalists' writings last week about their messiah).

As for opining that a NY paper's poll numbers might be influenced by a liberal push group, history supports the supposition, especially with so many Dems praying for Palin to get the nod. Any little thing they can do to get her thinking more about entering is a plus for the Teleprompter-in-Chief's Reader. (I really, seriously wish he'd speak in three directions when on TV, not just left-right. Speaking to the camera though would require a TP in front I guess.)

Palin would have been a far better prsident than Obama but as was stated earier the media bias has destroyed her ability to get elected. I do not think she will run but she will be very instrumental in supporting the nominee and posibly even helping select the nominee.

Palin would have been a far better prsident than Obama but as was stated earier the media bias has destroyed her ability to get elected. I do not think she will run but she will be very instrumental in supporting the nominee and posibly even helping select the nominee. Originally Posted by Laz

Blame the media when all else fails. I guess Obama could have blamed the media if he didn't get elected. There is plenty of biasness around. Fox likes anything conservative and CNN seems more liberaly oriented. It couldn't be she has no policies of her own that would cause her to not get elected. How good a president can you be if you take over office after the previous administration runs it into the ground with two wars and incalculable debt. People fail to realize that the so called stimulus package was passed on Bush's watch but they quickly sweep this to Obama.

. . . People fail to realize that the so called stimulus package was passed on Bush's watch but they quickly sweep this to Obama. Originally Posted by Spurbb2005

QE was started by a Democrat-controlled Congress "on Bush's watch," which is a rather weaselwordy way of noting that although Bush was the executive, he didn't write the law. However, one of Obama's first signatures was for more QE, the really huge big bad wolf to the deficit. So yeah, if it's fair to note Bush's watch on QE, it's fair to thank Obama for the big fail QE. Obama wasn't "shovel-ready."

Or maybe he was, just for shoveling something no one who voted for him expected.

Obama inherited a pile of shit just like Reagan did. Bush also inherited a pile of shit with the tech bubble and 9-11. Reagan instituded policies that led to properity for years. Bush implemented some policies that kept the economy from failing but he also allowed overspending and the mortgage bubble. He tried to warn congress about Fannie and Frddie but did not push hard enough to overcome Democrtic and probably some Republican oposition.

Obama claimed he was different from Bush but in the important ways he the the same as Bush just magnified. He contunued the Bush policies on the wars and added Libya. He continued to bail out businesses that should have been reorganized through the bankruptcy process. He took Bush's overspending and tripled it plus created a new entitlement in Obamacare that will be a financial disaster if not repealed. Reagan and Bush turned the pile of shit they inherited into fertilizer. Obama just let it stink up the place and doubled the pile.

Obama inherited a pile of shit just like Reagan did. Bush also inherited a pile of shit with the tech bubble and 9-11. Reagan instituded policies that led to properity for years. Bush implemented some policies that kept the economy from failing but he also allowed overspending and the mortgage bubble. He tried to warn congress about Fannie and Frddie but did not push hard enough to overcome Democrtic and probably some Republican oposition.

Obama claimed he was different from Bush but in the important ways he the the same as Bush just magnified. He contunued the Bush policies on the wars and added Libya. He continued to bail out businesses that should have been reorganized through the bankruptcy process. He took Bush's overspending and tripled it plus created a new entitlement in Obamacare that will be a financial disaster if not repealed. Reagan and Bush turned the pile of shit they inherited into fertilizer. Obama just let it stink up the place and doubled the pile. Originally Posted by Laz

Well said.

Check out the poll on their site, 54% say Palin is the best choice.

I don't know about y'all but I think nominating Palin is the fastest way to re-elect Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/nydn/poll...e=view+results Originally Posted by oshins

Well, I think they were talking about Ronald Wilson Reagan pretty much the same way...dismissing him as a dim-witted B-movie actor....despite the fact he was previously elected governor of a US State...and knocked off some heavyweight opponents to get there.

Hmm....sound like a certain hot MILF anyone knows? A President who will handle the country right and is pleasant to look at. (Todd, you're a lucky bastard!) It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned!