Thursday, August 25, 2011

Is Sarah Palin about to announce her candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination?



O, please, God. Pleeeeeease.

56 Comments:

Blogger graham wood said...

Will Sarah run? There is no doubt that the 'darling' of the Tea Party would want her to throw her hat in the ring.
According to Dick Morris - a shrewd and interesting commentator of the political scene in the USA it would be a "Big, big, mistake".

I respect Dick Morris's ongoing comments. subscribers@dickmorris.com)
The bigger question is not about Palin but rather Governor Chris Christiea, who according to Morris could win the nomination outright, over Perry, Bachman, and Mitt Romney.
To my mind Christie is "the goods" and about the only candidate who is 'heavyweight' (in every sense!) to seriously disturb, and then defeat the Obarmy One.

25 August 2011 at 16:53  
Blogger Jon said...

For. Crying. Out. Loud. She doesn't know whether Africa is a country or a continent!

On the plus side, when meeting with her paymasters, the Chinese, at least English will be a foreign language for both leaders.

Isn't there someone a bit smarter who can stand instead? Maybe the Republicans could nominate an actual Mamma Grizzly instead of her? Let's face it, it would still win in most of the South.

I dare any of you to try to refudiate me.

25 August 2011 at 18:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Careful what you wish for. Me thinks if she wins the nomination, it guarentees Obama a second term.

25 August 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger Span Ows said...

I agree with Dodo! SP is very popular but not that popular. I do however have a crush on her...mmmmmmmmmm

25 August 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Be prepared to rephrase your thoughts when addressing President Sarah Palin. She is coming soon.

25 August 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Span Ows

I agree she is rather tasty and worthy of an innocent crush.

25 August 2011 at 19:41  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

whitespacebug

Are you without "mental capacity" or being deliberately "deaf and blind"?

Has she no record of moral incontinence and most certainly is not a "tart". She has an endearing charm and notwithstanding her deficit in geography, isn't without intelligence.

25 August 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger Gallovidian said...

Americans may not be much good at Geography, but American politicians know they had better support Israel or the campaign dollars and the media good will will evaporate.

25 August 2011 at 21:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

whitespacebug

Agreed. I confess I'm not too keen on her politics and doubt she has sufficient competence to lead America.

25 August 2011 at 21:20  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

America needs the Monarchist Party.

25 August 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Gallovidian

What makes you say American politicians know they " ... had better support Israel or the campaign dollars and the media good will will evaporate"?

And by "support" you mean what exactly?

25 August 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger Oswin said...

Good God in heaven!

25 August 2011 at 22:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Sit on a pin, did you?

25 August 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger Gavin said...

The USA is certainly in need of both a President, and a governing Party, which will reverse, repeal and completely undo the immense overspending and economic sabotage which Hussein the Socialist has wrought upon it.
Ms Palin seems like a decent woman, from what I can make out. I like her and I like her 'small government' way of thinking. We could do with a woman of her mettle over here, in fact.
If she does run, she will attract a barrage of the vilest spitting snake venom of lies against her and her family, from the likes of the BBC/Guardian, of course. Just watch and see the Left react with their unmitigated hatred.

Ms Palin at least has the experience of being a State Governor behind her, which is far more than can be said for The Socialist prior to his Presidency. "Community Organiser" (ie, left-wing rabble-rouser).

25 August 2011 at 23:26  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

As an American, I hope Sarah Palin will throw her support behind another candidate... Bachmann, Santorum, Perry or another who is pro-life, pro-business, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-balanced-budget, TOUGH on immigration, cancel anchor babies, anchor marriages, be tough on crime, tough on jobs (getting people to work, including those who for generations have lived off the taxpayers).

Bachmann is smart, courageous, more Washington savy and can think on her feet, less of a glamor-celebrity figure. She is firm enough to stand up to Obama and doesn't need a teleprompter (like Obama does and Biden should).

Not sure if Palin can debate.

Perry is said to be pro-Sharia...and that's not good.

25 August 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger Henry_Tree said...

All of the comments about Palin's supposed ignorance only demonstrate the ignorance of the commentators and also their extremely short memory spans. Do you not recall the feeding frenzy of the BBC, Guardian and other left leaning "news" outlets when her emails were released? That was to be the end of her remember? They found nothing, despite even employing their biased readers to trawl through the "evidence".

Neutral observers noted a diligence and hands on approach to the job of a governor unafraid of tackling multinational oil companies.

So she did not know Africa was a continent? Obama did not know it was 2011 when he visited Britain but still thought he was in 2008. Who is the bigger fool?

25 August 2011 at 23:39  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

St Nikao

Can you advise what the terms 'anchor babies' and 'anchor marriages' mean?

They are not British expressions and I do not understand them.

25 August 2011 at 23:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Do hope you've recovered your composure.

It was a serious question to Gallovidian. There are two different sub-texts to Israel.

One sees the Middle East in political terms and capable of eventual resolution. There will either be a mutually acceptable agreement or the ongoing use of force and the imposition of a settlement.

Another sees it in Biblical terms. The Jews are God's Chosen People destined to return to the Promised Land. Christian prophecy about the 'end times' predicts a final confrontation between the forces of good (Israel and her supporters) and evil (Arab nations and their supporters). Political actions have to be based on this teleological understanding.

'Support' for Israel means different things to different people.

25 August 2011 at 23:59  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2011 at 00:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

Keeping well I hope and enjoying the last throws of summer. I'm out of favour, again, with our host!

26 August 2011 at 00:30  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Anchor baby = Illegal alien gives birth in US, baby gets to be US citizen, alien and her spouse, I suppose, get to stay.

Anchor Marriage = people 'marry' expressly so an alien can come to US and become a US citizen.

There are people coming to the US who do not respect or want to abide by the US constitution and who want to establish their inferior oppressive form of government here. (ie, Sharia and Communism/Socialism) Liberalism is just one baby step away and an ally of the parenthetical systems.

26 August 2011 at 00:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

St Nikao

So essentially derogatory remarks then?

According to the 'Double-Tongued Dictionary' the term means:
"a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose United States citizenship."

Barrett, the compiler of the dictionary states:
"...it is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia."

26 August 2011 at 00:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sarah Palin will not win. She doesn't have the gravitas necessary to be viewed as a credible Commander in Chief. That is an essential characteristic of a successful Presidential candidate. Polls in the US mean nothing until after the first couple of primaries anyways.

carl

26 August 2011 at 00:43  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

There is the State of Israel and there is spiritual Israel, the Israel grafted into the Vine, Jesus Christ, which is the true Church.

Spiritual Israel is comprised of all who are being saved through faith in Jesus Christ and who are taking up their crosses, crucifying the sinful flesh and following/doing His Word/Will.

The Government of Spiritual Israel is founded on GOD's Law and power and Mt. Zion in Scripture symbolizes this. Spiritual Jerusalem symbolizes the Temple of our hearts and Worship in Spirit and in Truth. All true worshippers ascend to, enter and dwell in Spiritual Jerusalem in the here and now. (Hebrews 12, Isaiah 35and Isaiah 66.

Some Orthodox Jews do not see the State of Israel as the True Israel, but as Zionist Zealots, with many secular unbelievers who do not follow God's Commandments. The State of Israel allows abortion and supports LBGT sexuality, so they are not in agreement with the Torah and the Commandments.

Interesting that Israel is shaped like Masada. With China supporting Palestine, with N.Korea and Pakistan now being best buds with China, and with N. Korea has sent their nuclear software to Iran to replace what the Stuxnet virus ate - things are looking grim for Israel and for the US as well.

It may possibly come to the Masada scenario for the Zionist Zealots yet again - unless God intervenes. If it does come to that, Israel will take aim at several of the surrounding capitals and it would be a painful costly victory for the Arabs. Whether the new Masada would be part of Armageddon or precede it, is a mystery.

In Scripture, Assyria/Egypt/Babylon always stand for the nations that follow other gods and take Israel captive and tear up Jerusalem when Israel rebels against God, says Isaiah. We see this happen time and again throughtout Scripture. There is also a running contrast between the Daughter of Jerusalem with the Daughter of Babylon (and the DoJ wins.) Babylon/Egypt/Assyria (Islam) will be defeated and brought down, but not with man's sword; it is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. Isaiah 31:8-9

In a positive spiritual light, a revival is taking place under the radar in several of these nations. Many will come to faith in Christ before Armageddon occurs in Israel.

26 August 2011 at 01:08  
Blogger asdfsdfadf said...

You'd be making a big mistake to believe she's as dumb as the Left-wing media have portrayed her. In fact, don't believe a damned thing you hear about her from the American media. Her image is solely an artifact of the Journo-list scandal. Google it.

Journo-list was--before it disbanded in disgrace--a mailing list composed of major Left-wing media people from radio, TV and print who colluded to annihilate her when they saw that she could beat Obama. She could, she can, and, moreover, she will.

If you doubt me on Journo-list, ask yourself about the odd synchronicity of recent media memes. How could all of these news organizations act with but one voice? Obviously, these creeps have re-grouped and are writing their preferred narrative--a narrative designed to get Obama re-elected. Some worthy people, smart as they are, are swallowing it whole. Morris is one of them.

You can tell Journo-list handiwork because it appears overnight, everywhere from ostensibly "independent" and unrelated media organizations. Obama's call to assassinate bin Laden was suddenly a "gutsy call." That was their work. "The Republicans are holding the economy hostage" That was them again. The disinformation they've been pushing for a long time is "Palin can't win." (Boy, would they love to believe that one.) The power of the Big Lie is so great that even some moron Republicans believe it. You have to realize that they wouldn't bother to do this so relentlessly unless Palin was an existential threat to them. She is.

Obama is a radical Leftist and innate totalitarian, and the Zombie 'Democrat' party he heads is now enabled by an immense Stalinist media machine the sole purpose of which is disinformation.

Do not be fooled.

26 August 2011 at 03:56  
Blogger albion said...

asdfs - thanks for remider of Journolist

26 August 2011 at 06:25  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Hell yeah, Your Grace.

26 August 2011 at 07:24  
Blogger Span Ows said...

@Gavin: "If she does run, she will attract a barrage of the vilest spitting snake venom of lies against her and her family, from the likes of the BBC/Guardian, of course. Just watch and see the Left react with their unmitigated hatred."

That is a certainty and in fact as regards the BBC has never ended since the last election for POTUS. Mark Mardell, Katty Kay, Justin Webb et al are all pathetic Palin-haters and they CANNOT control themselves when she is on the scene. The bias is rampant.

@English Viking: I would say you are very welcome, you get the red card for the reaction but those that 'poked the stick' get off without even a yellow.

26 August 2011 at 09:45  
Blogger dmcl01 said...

Ron Paul 2012.

26 August 2011 at 11:10  
Blogger scottspeig said...

I'm not sure YG, maybe getting her behind Bachman might be a better option. I'd support her though.

26 August 2011 at 12:44  
Blogger Gallovidian said...

Okay if was a serious question; I mean financial aid and military supplies, unconditional support in international forums like the UN, and the willingness to commit US troops where US interests are not threatened.

I din't mean rapture.

26 August 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Gallovidian

It was a serious question.

Finacial aid and military supplies - linked to policy objectives or unconditional?

Unconditional support in the UN - again, to achieve what end?

Willingness to commit US troops (I assume you mean where US interests ARE threatened) - again, what are US 'interests' in the region?

No administration can offer unconditional international support and unconditional financial and military assistance to another country. Surely they have to have an intended outcome in mind?

26 August 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 20:59:

My exclamation referred to Sarah Palin; it really isn't all about YOU, you know.

Thinking on, you could give DanJo lessons on hogging the limelight, and then some! (DanJo, where are you; all is forgiven, PLEASE come back!) :o)

26 August 2011 at 17:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

I see 'The Pocket Guide to Compost Making' has taught you much about producing waste product although it's not being expelled through your cloaca.

26 August 2011 at 19:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

English Viking

It’s simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don’t say it.

26 August 2011 at 21:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

English Viking

Excellent!

Have a drink and think on Sammy Davis, Jr's observation, "Alcohol gives you infinite patience for stupidity."

26 August 2011 at 22:49  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

EV

I was referring to dear Sarah who, for all her faults, is my type of gal.

27 August 2011 at 00:12  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2011 at 00:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

English Viking

Probably a perfect candidate for fronting the criminal organisation that is the US.

Think whatever the hell you like. Just remember to append a "Thank you" to the end of it.

carl

27 August 2011 at 01:05  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl jacobs

Come off it!

The USA should say thank you to Britain for holding out against Nazism until your country was stung into action. Think of Nazi Germany in complete control of all of Eastern and Western Europe aligned with Japan and Arabia.

What chance the USA then?

Britain had to pay through the nose for your assistance and relinquish her Empire prematurely and, to boot, your country lacked the will to stand against Stalin.

Yes, your were our allies and when you joined the war made a decisive difference. There were substantial losses on both sides and your countrymen gave their lives. Just remember not only was freedom secured, your country also benefited economically from the conflict and developed atomic capability.

Britain stood alone in 1939.

27 August 2011 at 01:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2011 at 02:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

English Viking

You're welcome. We were glad to do it. But you forgot to say "Thank you" for saving England's existence as a sovereign nation. Twice. Not bad for a criminal enterprise.

carl

27 August 2011 at 03:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

carl jacobs

Come off it!

What I said is historical fact.

The USA should say thank you to Britain for holding out against Nazism until your country was stung into action.

In the first place, Churchill's entire strategy was to hold out, and involve America in the war. Britain did not have a snowball's chance of beating Germany on its own. Without American intervention, Britain faced eventual certain defeat. If nothing else, the U-Boat campaign would have starved England into submission. In the second place, I have stated repeatedly that Britain saved western civilization by its resistance between June 1940 and December 1941. Even so, the Germans could have and by all logic should have won the war during that period. The Germans could have easily destroyed the BEF in France. The Germans could have won the battle of attrition that was the Battle of Britain. The Germans could have collapsed the Soviet Union before the winter of 1941. Any one of these would have guaranteed German victory. It was more strategic miscalculation by Germany than resistance by Britain that prevented German victory. And why was Germany in such a dominant position by June 1940? It wasn't because of American isolationism.

Think of Nazi Germany in complete control of all of Eastern and Western Europe aligned with Japan and Arabia.

I do think about it. And I shudder. But why was this even a possibility? Where was Britain in 1936 when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland? Where was Britain in 1938 when Austria was re-absorbed into the Reich? Where was Britain in 1938 when Czechoslovakia was carved up? Where was Britain in September 1939 when Hitler's entire Army was in Poland and the western front was wide open? Hitler just didn't appear on the scene as a lethal threat in 1940. He was allowed to appear on the scene by certain European nations that were willing to do almost anything to avoid war.

(continued)

27 August 2011 at 04:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

What chance the USA then?

Not much.

Britain had to pay through the nose for your assistance and relinquish her Empire prematurely...

Britain lost the Empire because 1) it was bankrupted by the war, and 2) it was so morally and physically exhausted it didn't have the will to fight to keep it. But again we return to the fatal miscalculations in France and Britain that led to the two-front war. Why were you fighting the Japanese? Because the Japanese took advantage of the power vacuum created in the Pacific by the defeat of the colonial powers in Europe. If you hadn't been appeasing Hitler in 1936, you wouldn't have lost the Empire by 1948. You squandered the opportunity to stop Hitler when he was still weak enough to be stopped.

... and, to boot, your country lacked the will to stand against Stalin.

Are you kidding me? Why do you think Western Europe didn't become a Soviet colony? It was only the power of the US that allowed Western Europe to exist at all. Without the US, Stalin would have swallowed Europe whole. That was why Stalin supported the Germans at the beginning of the war. He wanted the major European nations to destroy each other so he could emerge as the dominant power in Europe.

Britain stood alone in 1939.

No, Britain stood alone in June 1940. In 1939 it was standing squarely behind the French Army. It was the catastrophic collapse of France that reshaped the balance of power, and exposed the dangers of all the decisions made during the previous three years. Had it not been for inexplicable German stupidity, the Germans would have won the war before the US had any reason to be involved. Remember, in 1940 the US was not a major military power relative to the other powers. It had a navy that was definitely inferior to the Imperial Japanese Navy, and arguably inferior to the Royal Navy. It was American potential and productivity that turned the war against the Axis.

It was US power that pushed Hitler out of Western Europe and re-established western civilization in the area. It was US power that kept the Soviet Union out of western Europe. It was US power that eventually broke the Soviet Union and liberated the whole of Europe. Free states exist in Europe today only because of US power.

carl

27 August 2011 at 04:45  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

A very American view of history! Your country just did not have the political will to fight in 1939; and you know it. Churchill had to go begging to you for help.

Yes, I agree, Britain should have spotted and acted againgst Hitler sooner.

Yes, I agree, but for Hitler's reluctance to invade England and his opening of a front against Russia, we would have been defeated too. Thank God for this.

American 'lend-lease' added to Britain's financial burden. Profit made by your country to defend freedom. After the war you made a bucket load of money from aid to reconstruct Europe.

Part of the 'condition' was loss of Empire to secure 'free trade'. And who benefited most from this?

Negotiations between Britain, USA and Russia were increasingly dominated by USA and Russia, culminating in the travesty at Yalta. Churchill was isolated at this conference. The USA, the 'hope of the world' could and should have aligned itself with Britain against Communism. It didn't.

Let's just say the USA owes as much gratitude to Britain as any we owe you.

27 August 2011 at 11:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Your country just did not have the political will to fight in 1939; and you know it.

In 1939, the US didn't have the political will to fight in yet one more European War. In 1939, there was no reason for the US to fight in another European war because there were already two European powers engaged - both of whom had substantially greater military capability than the US. What reason did the US have to fight? The defeat of France radically changed the equation, and Roosevelt understood it. He knew the threat presented by Hitler and how important it was to keep Britain in the war. He knew the US would eventually have to fight. Churchill didn't have to go begging Roosevelt for anything. But to Joe Citizen in the US, Hitler's war was just Version 7.1.1 of what the Europeans had been doing for centuries. Roosevelt had to manage that political reality.

American 'lend-lease' added to Britain's financial burden. Profit made by your country to defend freedom.

That's an interesting way to describe the life line that kept your country alive during the dark days of 40-41. You know the Germans accused the US of conducting convoy escorts in violation of neutrality. And the Germans were right. The US was conducting convoy escort.

After the war you made a bucket load of money from aid to reconstruct Europe.

Yeah. Europe sure suffered economic deprivation under US protection, didn't it? Perhaps we should have modeled our post-war economic program after the British Empire instead. Well, OK, Britain didn't do too well right after the war, but then the electorate threw out Churchill and elected a Socialist gov't. What did they expect?

Negotiations between Britain, USA and Russia were increasingly dominated by USA and Russia, culminating in the travesty at Yalta. Churchill was isolated at this conference. The USA, the 'hope of the world' could and should have aligned itself with Britain against Communism.

It is true that Roosevelt's accurate perception of Hitler was not matched by an accurate perception of Stalin. (Not to mention the fact that Soviet agents had penetrated deep into Roosevelt's gov't. Alger Hiss was at Yalta.) But there were also political realities to account for. There wasn't going to be a follow-on war against Stalin once Germany was defeated. There was still the unfinished war in the Pacific which promised to be bloody and brutal. There was the reality that Soviet soldiers were going to occupy Eastern Europe in any case. Stalin would determine the destiny of the lands he occupied no matter what anyone said at Yalta. And there was the fact that Roosevelt would be dead in two months time. The post-war settlement had to recognize these realities.

Let's just say the USA owes as much gratitude to Britain as any we owe you.

The US does owe Britain (and specifically Winston Churchill) a debt of gratitude for not immediately rolling over when France collapsed. Were it not for Churchill, that might have happened. There certainly were many in the British gov't who wanted to make terms with Hitler in June 1940. It was Churchill who held the line. That act of courage and integrity is one of the greatest moments in human history. But don't forget who put the world in that position in the first place. And don't forget who secured your existence as a nation both from Hitler and from Stalin. The US might have survived Nazi domination of Europe. Britain most certainly would not have.

carl

27 August 2011 at 15:22  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 19:25

Poor stuff old chap, you just don't have the credentials.

Have you ever considered crochet?

27 August 2011 at 16:22  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

Yes but the USA didn't have to make so much money out of Britain, now did it? Are you really saying if Churchill had been re-elected this might have been different.I don't think so.

By the time of Yalta Russia was in no position to withstand USA pressure. Communist Russia's intent was misunderstood. Again Churchill had them right. Noone listened. The Pacific War would not have been compromised by a show of determination to withstand Russia's advances.

Why did the USA insist on the premature dismantling of the British Empire? This opened the door for Russia and China to cause political mayhem.

"The US might have survived Nazi domination of Europe."
Very, very doubtful without a toehold on the continent.

27 August 2011 at 20:02  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

All the advertising plays havoc with my phone's browser..and some is rather tasteless and altogether its rather intrusive. Is his grace short of cash? Or just cashing in?

28 August 2011 at 20:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm trying to work out whether the adverts are targetted by the reader's browsing history. I can't for the life of me see why I'm getting adverts for shirtless male celebrities all over the place. It's a mystery.

29 August 2011 at 10:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The one top right is advertising fairy lights now. :O

29 August 2011 at 10:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older