Phan In Phlorida wrote:Dunno about Huckabee... he shot himself in the foot the moment he said the "align the constitution with the bible" comment.

I agree with that, and his smarmy comment about Mormons worshiping the devil or whatever. On the nanny-state side, he's in league with Bloomberg in my book. I'm not a fan of the guy, for what it's worth - I suspect if he's still around in four years (as in part of the public memory) he might come out as a pretty strong candidate with better handlers.

pacino wrote:

You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there.

Or from favorability ratings. Or polls about it. But she is popular out in fantasy land.

What are you, mpmcgraw now?

I'm talking about her draw - if I'm not mistaken, she still outdraws McCain at rallies. I'm not comparing her to Obama here.

So she draws a lot at her rallies while not being liked as a VP candidate by the majority of Americans.

Now THATS what people should be looking for!

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:

You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there.

Or from favorability ratings. Or polls about it. But she is popular out in fantasy land.

What are you, mpmcgraw now?

I'm talking about her draw - if I'm not mistaken, she still outdraws McCain at rallies. I'm not comparing her to Obama here.

There's no contradiction between what you both are saying. Palin is a base-motivator, beloved by a certain type of activist and widely distrusted/disliked/mocked beyond that core of support. Like Howard Dean.

(Actually, she could run for RNC Chair...)

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

That makes sense. And as with the Democrats after losing and losing and losing, the choice will be whether you want to draw down to the true believers, or broaden out to diffuse the ideological purity. Some have framed this as "Palin vs. Gingrich," though I think Huckabee makes vastly more sense than Newt--he's definitely more likable, probably smarter, and as an executive he has more relevant experience.

A second question is whether "conservative" and "Republican" should overlap as much as they have. Maybe the failures of Bush and the likely defeat of McCain have given cover for all those self-described conservatives who support Obama because they find him dreamy or whatever, but it's also at least arguable that they're putting a sense of principle above party loyalty. (Says the former big honking liberal who voted for Nader in 2000...)

I'm hoping it's not about purity but about reality - which is why the Douthat/Salam/Pawlenty/Jindal flavor of conservatism is so appealing to me as a national dialog right now - the GOP should try to be the party of Sam's Club not the party of the country club, the party of a middle class that neither the Democrats or Republicans support right now, dissasociate being for free markets and being for big business, if the government is to be activist, have it be activist in ways that strengthen nuclear families, etc.

I think Huckabee is your front-runner for the next one.

Maybe he gets the nom in 2012 only to lose to Obama (whoever wins this is going to be able to run for a second term on the economy that was garbage when they got there and how it improved in four years) but Jindal will p0wn in 2018, if he doesn't run in 2012 just to get the exposure.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:

You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there.

Or from favorability ratings. Or polls about it. But she is popular out in fantasy land.

What are you, mpmcgraw now?

I'm talking about her draw - if I'm not mistaken, she still outdraws McCain at rallies. I'm not comparing her to Obama here.

There's no contradiction between what you both are saying. Palin is a base-motivator, beloved by a certain type of activist and widely distrusted/disliked/mocked beyond that core of support. Like Howard Dean.

(Actually, she could run for RNC Chair...)

That is what I meant, I wasn't writing in the context of "America luvz Sarah" - I was referring to the base she was hired to invigorate (not represented by conservative columnists for national newspapers).

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

Yeah. I didn't mean Palin as visionary/prophet, just as someone who inspired a really fervent following among a small group of voters.

Kerry four years ago was entirely borne up by how much we (Kerry voters) hated and feared Bush. McCain isn't so lucky--though that's in part a tribute to Obama managing to make himself not easily hate-able, or scary for any reasons other than generic ones.

I hope that Grand New Party/Sam's Club Republican mindset takes hold (and I'm still very proud of having flagged that article for visionary potential 2-3 years ago...). It's the Republican/conservative answer to your current problems in the same way that the New Democrat vision that emerged in the late '80s was for exhausted old-skool liberalism. But that was a painful birthing process that, ironically, didn't really complete itself until the last three years. Maybe Jindal is your combination Bill Clinton/Obama.

Wait, so the whole sam's club stuff... that makes it that populism and social conservatism is all located in one party? Crap, I might have to become a Dem then, I get to be in the party of the rich, voting my economic best interests WHILE supporting gay rights and other socially liberal causes? That is freaking solid. Who cares if we'll only make up about 9% of the electorate, I'm not into winning elections like that "Party, Corps, God, Country" guy Jerseyhoya.

Just printed this out to read on subway...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opini ... nted=print

VoxOrion wrote:You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there. Translate the deeper meaning of that however you want.

Vox, listening to all that heavy metal has rendered you tone deaf. Palin's 'popular' the way Michael Jackson is 'popular'. Did you see SNL? Even she knows it.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

Yeah. I didn't mean Palin as visionary/prophet, just as someone who inspired a really fervent following among a small group of voters.

Kerry four years ago was entirely borne up by how much we (Kerry voters) hated and feared Bush. McCain isn't so lucky--though that's in part a tribute to Obama managing to make himself not easily hate-able, or scary for any reasons other than generic ones.

I hope that Grand New Party/Sam's Club Republican mindset takes hold (and I'm still very proud of having flagged that article for visionary potential 2-3 years ago...). It's the Republican/conservative answer to your current problems in the same way that the New Democrat vision that emerged in the late '80s was for exhausted old-skool liberalism. But that was a painful birthing process that, ironically, didn't really complete itself until the last three years. Maybe Jindal is your combination Bill Clinton/Obama.

Ay yi yi.

Clinton was a departure from old-skool leftism, Obama is a triumphant return to it.

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there. Translate the deeper meaning of that however you want.

Vox, listening to all that heavy metal has rendered you tone deaf. Palin's 'popular' the way Michael Jackson is 'popular'. Did you see SNL? Even she knows it.

Her poll numbers (favorable/unfavorable) are on par with the other three candidates in a number of polls I've seen (and better than Biden's in some), so this notion that she is "widely" reviled is "greatly" exaggerated for reasons known only to the exaggerators.

dajafi wrote:Just printed this out to read on subway...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opini ... nted=print

creating some US form of evidence-based medicine version of UK's NICE has been on Newt's agenda for years; my concern is he'd want the function contracted out to one or more braintrusts he has his fingerprints on.

(aside: I have a glancing connection to people involved in hooking up Beane/Gingrich )

he has been extremely consistent in his message about the importance of basing health care developments on sturdier research than presently applied (that's not really saying much).

The problem, as many (most?) familiar with the state of healthcare evidence will attest, is that such evidence is no less subject to political manipulation than the data pertaining to nuclear reactors, central banking, and any other centralized social solution apparatus.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

Yeah. I didn't mean Palin as visionary/prophet, just as someone who inspired a really fervent following among a small group of voters.

Kerry four years ago was entirely borne up by how much we (Kerry voters) hated and feared Bush. McCain isn't so lucky--though that's in part a tribute to Obama managing to make himself not easily hate-able, or scary for any reasons other than generic ones.

I hope that Grand New Party/Sam's Club Republican mindset takes hold (and I'm still very proud of having flagged that article for visionary potential 2-3 years ago...). It's the Republican/conservative answer to your current problems in the same way that the New Democrat vision that emerged in the late '80s was for exhausted old-skool liberalism. But that was a painful birthing process that, ironically, didn't really complete itself until the last three years. Maybe Jindal is your combination Bill Clinton/Obama.

Ay yi yi.

Clinton was a departure from old-skool leftism, Obama is a triumphant return to it.

dumb & blind, to go along with deaf

nothing new here

Mountainphan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there. Translate the deeper meaning of that however you want.

Vox, listening to all that heavy metal has rendered you tone deaf. Palin's 'popular' the way Michael Jackson is 'popular'. Did you see SNL? Even she knows it.

Her poll numbers (favorable/unfavorable) are on par with the other three candidates in a number of polls I've seen (and better than Biden's in some), so this notion that she is "widely" reviled is "greatly" exaggerated for reasons known only to the exaggerators.

funny, I never used the word widely anywhere. See, when you're reciting a talking point, you should amend it slightly to reflect the context in which you're dropping it. Otherwise it comes off sounding threadbare & robotic.

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there. Translate the deeper meaning of that however you want.

Vox, listening to all that heavy metal has rendered you tone deaf. Palin's 'popular' the way Michael Jackson is 'popular'. Did you see SNL? Even she knows it.

Her poll numbers (favorable/unfavorable) are on par with the other three candidates in a number of polls I've seen (and better than Biden's in some), so this notion that she is "widely" reviled is "greatly" exaggerated for reasons known only to the exaggerators.

funny, I never used the word widely anywhere. See, when you're reciting a talking point, you should amend it slightly to reflect the context in which you're dropping it. Otherwise it comes off sounding threadbare & robotic.

You don't follow well, do you. You implied as much and unless you want to be dishonest, you ought to admit it. When you unjumble many of your sentences, "talking points" can be found all over your place.

Oh, by the way, unsurprisingly, you fail to respond to my rather straightforward statement that Palin isn't as unpopular as some around here would like to believe. It's okay. Not really, but I understand why.

How does one imply an adverb? And even further, how is that same person lying when they don't admit to implying a word they never implied?

Was this posted already? It's still funny.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4902728e24179869/4741e3c5156499a7/d4b6456a/-cpid/c6bbc9799070a74f" id="W4727a250e66f97234902728e24179869" width="384" height="283"><param name="movie" value="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4902728e24179869/4741e3c5156499a7/d4b6456a/-cpid/c6bbc9799070a74f"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="allowNetworking" value="all"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></object>

philliesphhan wrote:How does one imply an adverb? And even further, how is that same person lying when they don't admit to implying a word they never implied?

Implied that she's "widely" reviled (like Michael Jackson). It's not that complicated.