Palin on GOP Leaders: "They're Not Likin' This"
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is out campaigning for Tea Party candidates, but she may have her eyes on something bigger: the White House.
Palin has been raising her profile and increasing her clout within the Republican Party for months, fueling intense speculation as to why.
Her appearance in Kentucky on Thursday was vintage Palin.
"We're gonna take back our country and we're gonna turn things around!"
She was campaigning for Republican Senatorial hopeful Rand Paul, one of the Tea Party insurgents she has endorsed - sometimes to the chagrin of GOP regulars who worry they are too extreme, unelectable, or both.
It's a reaction she apparently relishes.
"The hierarchy, and, you know, they're not likin' this,"
Interactive Map: CBS News Election 2010 Race Ratings
Tonight Palin comes to Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucus in 2012. Is she setting the table for a presidential campaign?
Iowa Republican State Chairman Matt Strawn said, "We're just fortunate to have her here because she certainly energizes Iowa Republicans at all levels."
But Democratic strategists say the more Sarah, the better for them.
"The very best organizer and fundraiser for the Democratic Party is going to be here in Iowa - Sarah Palin," said David Plouffe.
Indeed, CBS News' latest polling shows the number of Americans viewing Palin unfavorably has been rising along with her visibility - 40 percent unfavorable in August, 46 percent unfavorable today.
Palin isn't saying what her long-range intentions are. But as they say in political circles here, nobody comes to Iowa by accident.
Can one appearance in Iowa constitute the beginning of a presidential campaign? CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer says it might.
But on "The Early Show" this morning, Schieffer said the fervor of voters who want to throw out incumbents in favor of candidates more right- or left-leaning is worrying the Republican Party establishment, who have long memories.
"What is really bothering the establishment Republicans right now is what happened to Republicans back in 1964," Schieffer told anchor Harry Smith. "You know, they had almost won in 1960 when Nixon ran against Kennedy. The next time around, 1964, Republicans threw out all the establishment people, all the leaders of their party and nominated Barry Goldwater - as I've said many times, a very good man but someone far to the right of the mainstream of the Republican Party. They lost in a landslide.
"Same thing happened to Democrats in 1972: They threw out all the establishment people, leaders in their party, big city mayors like Dick Daley, and nominated - again, a very good man - George McGovern, but someone far left of the mainstream of their party, and they lost in a landslide.
"That's what's bothering the establishment Republicans now: They're worried, are they headed to something like that in 2012?"
Smith said the GOP's task is to harness the passion and enthusiasm of Tea Party activists without going over the electoral abyss.
Schieffer agreed: "These people are committed. A lot of these Tea Party folks are not really Republicans. You know, they're anti-tax, they're very, very conservative. They tend to be older. In mid-term elections, you don't have young people turning out very much to vote. And they were a powerful force. I mean, there's absolutely no question about it. Sarah Palin's endorsement meant a great deal to those particular people.
"But, how is this going to play in November? And that's what they are all grappling with: How do you keep the enthusiasm but, at the same time, how do you appeal to the people in the middle, the independents, who in the end are always the ones who decide the elections?"
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved. Palin has been raising her profile and increasing her clout within the Republican Party for months, fueling intense speculation as to why.
Her appearance in Kentucky on Thursday was vintage Palin.
"We're gonna take back our country and we're gonna turn things around!"
She was campaigning for Republican Senatorial hopeful Rand Paul, one of the Tea Party insurgents she has endorsed - sometimes to the chagrin of GOP regulars who worry they are too extreme, unelectable, or both.
It's a reaction she apparently relishes.
"The hierarchy, and, you know, they're not likin' this,"
Interactive Map: CBS News Election 2010 Race Ratings
Tonight Palin comes to Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucus in 2012. Is she setting the table for a presidential campaign?
Iowa Republican State Chairman Matt Strawn said, "We're just fortunate to have her here because she certainly energizes Iowa Republicans at all levels."
But Democratic strategists say the more Sarah, the better for them.
"The very best organizer and fundraiser for the Democratic Party is going to be here in Iowa - Sarah Palin," said David Plouffe.
Indeed, CBS News' latest polling shows the number of Americans viewing Palin unfavorably has been rising along with her visibility - 40 percent unfavorable in August, 46 percent unfavorable today.
Palin isn't saying what her long-range intentions are. But as they say in political circles here, nobody comes to Iowa by accident.
Can one appearance in Iowa constitute the beginning of a presidential campaign? CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer says it might.
But on "The Early Show" this morning, Schieffer said the fervor of voters who want to throw out incumbents in favor of candidates more right- or left-leaning is worrying the Republican Party establishment, who have long memories.
"What is really bothering the establishment Republicans right now is what happened to Republicans back in 1964," Schieffer told anchor Harry Smith. "You know, they had almost won in 1960 when Nixon ran against Kennedy. The next time around, 1964, Republicans threw out all the establishment people, all the leaders of their party and nominated Barry Goldwater - as I've said many times, a very good man but someone far to the right of the mainstream of the Republican Party. They lost in a landslide.
"Same thing happened to Democrats in 1972: They threw out all the establishment people, leaders in their party, big city mayors like Dick Daley, and nominated - again, a very good man - George McGovern, but someone far left of the mainstream of their party, and they lost in a landslide.
"That's what's bothering the establishment Republicans now: They're worried, are they headed to something like that in 2012?"
Smith said the GOP's task is to harness the passion and enthusiasm of Tea Party activists without going over the electoral abyss.
Schieffer agreed: "These people are committed. A lot of these Tea Party folks are not really Republicans. You know, they're anti-tax, they're very, very conservative. They tend to be older. In mid-term elections, you don't have young people turning out very much to vote. And they were a powerful force. I mean, there's absolutely no question about it. Sarah Palin's endorsement meant a great deal to those particular people.
"But, how is this going to play in November? And that's what they are all grappling with: How do you keep the enthusiasm but, at the same time, how do you appeal to the people in the middle, the independents, who in the end are always the ones who decide the elections?"
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- Best Low-Tech Cell Phones Suitable for Seniors
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- Terms to Never Use in Your Resume
- Best Wheeled-Luggage for Your Budget
- Bill Nye's Withered Romance
- Why losing your sense of smell stinks
Aw, slappy. If you're a SINCERE socialist, you're certainly religious.
=====
'Socialism'? Ahh. You judge with when you have no clue about me. That says a lot about you.
"You 'want to abolish personal income tax in favor of a national sales tax', do you? Something revenue neutral, no doubt, leaving the spending power of the federal bureaucracies intact at their present level, or perhaps at a level prevailing two or three or five years ago, right"
Nope, I'm talking about right now. And making it so the government cannot BORROW money, either. Make them work off of the revenues. There are states which already operate that way - so why not the fed?
Ah, slappy. Bent upon proving your illiteracy no matter how shameful it is?
The federal government gets spending power in three principal ways:
1) Extortion with much outright armed robbery thrown in. This is called "taxation."
2) Borrowing (of which you propose prohibition).
3) Counterfeiting, called "quantitative easing" by the Keynesians and their co-conspirators. It used to be referred to as "debauching the currency."
This last is accomplished by the Federal Reserve System, a complex of private banks to which has been delegated the power to issue currency denominated in dollars. The Fed issues such banknotes (and electronic drawing privileges) on the basis of assets allegedly held by the member banks.
Bear in mind that the Fed has never been audited, so we really have no objective confirmation as to what they do and do not hold in the way of assets.
Most of these supposed assets are notes of indebtedness uttered by the U.S. Treasury Department.
So all circulating currency in this country - the "legal tender" you read in that fine-print admonition on each banknote - is based upon not a significant much more than federal government debt. The coins and bills in your pockets are (quite literally) monetized government debt.
So how would your plan for "making it so the government cannot BORROW money" cannot be sidestepped instantly and overwhelmingly by the Federal Reserve System?
Are you perchance an advocate of Dr. Paul's plan to abolish the Fed and restore lawful money to these United States?
If so, we are in this aspect in accord. If not, the foreclosure of the federal thugs' ability to borrow is like spritzing a charging bull with a water pistol.
Oh, yeah. And at what level do you wish to restrict the spending ability of the federal government? Today's? That prevailing a few years ago? Where do you draw the line?
Or do you simply wish to make it impossible for the Congress to set a budget funding any activities not explicitly enumerated in Article 1 of the charter of civil government each congresscritter swears to support and defend?
That's my objective.
--
Most don't realize it's privately owned, considering its title. It's hardly federal.
And "where do we draw the line"? I'd say somewhere substantially before the 160+ federal agencies we currently have.
Er, how do you KNOW that "Michele Obama wrote her own paper" and so forth? She strikes me as precisely the kind of lackweight whom I exploited ruthlessly for beer-and-pizza money all through college, ghostwriting their papers for them.
Most of us with academic experience both as undergraduates and in grad schools of various kinds have known creatures like Michele Obama.
Known 'em well, actually. They specialize in presenting a facade of intelligence and competence, with no more of real substance behind the masquerade than you'll find atmosphere inside a functional incandescent lightbulb.
And they burn out just as quickly the instant they spring a leak.
--
This coming from someone who thinks we should base our lives on a religion supposedly "revealed" to a select few "wise" men in the desert 3,000 years ago. I see a cracked "facade" alright, yours.
And now it's religious bigotry focused upon Roman Catholics? Ooh, how "Ku Klux Klan" of you, cursive.
Malafortuna, I spent the years in parochial school and in college under the Jesuits needed to acquire that education in theology and philosophy most conducive to giving Holy Mother Church the razzberry. I don't know how atheistic you think you are, putzie, but I'm a TRAINED rationalist.
Which you, obviously, are not. Dig up a copy of Smith's *Atheism: The Case Against God* (1974) and get started, why don'tcha? Should only take you three or four years to catch up.
Probably why I'm not a sucker for the socialist (allegedly secular) religion, either.
What was that line from George Carlin's "I Used To Be Irish Catholic" routine?
"It was nice; like I say, a lot of classroom freedom...in fact there was so much freedom that by eighth grade, many of us had lost the faith. 'Cause they made questioners out of us and, uh, they really didn't have any answers, y'know."
Well, guess what? Your Fraudulence-in-Chief doesn't have any answers, either.
None that aren't dragging the whole damned country down into poverty and ruination, anyway.
Hm. Is that his objective?
Must be, no?
--
What, you think that because I'm not religious that I'm a socialist?
That's the problem with the Religious Right which has hijacked the Republican party.
I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I want to abolish personal income tax in favor of a national sales tax. I want to penalize the employers of illegal immigrants to stop the flow of jobs. I want to make sure that separation of church and state stays that way.
I don't want your morals imposed on me. As long as I am not harming others via my personal moral practices, you can mind your own damn business.
.
.
Aw, slappy. If you're a SINCERE socialist, you're certainly religious. What else is there about this hell-on-earth doctrine that makes it inviting to anyone who thinks that he has the best interests of other human beings in mind?
Certainly, there's nothing rational about backing government officers who - as a matter of explicit policy - violate every premise upon which the concept of civil government under rule of law has ever been based.
You "want to abolish personal income tax in favor of a national sales tax," do you?
Something "revenue neutral," no doubt, leaving the spending power of the federal bureaucracies intact at their present level, or perhaps at a level prevailing two or three or five years ago, right?
Tsk. Some "fiscally conservative" guy you are. No matter how government is funded - whether by progressive taxes on wages and other "income" or by excises - the problem isn't how MUCH is vampire'd away from the productive sector of society but also to what purposes that spending power is put.
When those purposes are themselves invidious, destructive of civil comity and individual rights, it doesn't matter HOW "fiscally conservative" you think yourself to be, you're bent upon the perpetuation and exacerbation of a process that is destroying your neighbors' lives.
And you think you're "socially moderate," do you? Do you wish to continue the insane, pathological, and utterly unconstitutional "War on Drugs," or would you see it utterly abolished as the criminal usurpation of powers which have no authorization whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution?
If not, you're "moderate" in precisely the same way that its "moderate" to cut out only PART of a completely operable cancer.
Same thing with "the flow of jobs," which is caused not by immigrants of any kind but rather by federal, state, and local regulations which impair the economic viability of mining, manufacturing, construction, and other productive enterprises so that politically connected established actors in these sectors can keep their respective rice bowls without effective competition, diddling their customers as usual.
Some "fiscally conservative" "social moderate" you are!
Schmucklet, you wouldn't know "morals" if somebody were to tattoo the word on your forehead in mirror-reverse so you couldn't catch the reflection in any shiny surface you wander past.
--
"You 'want to abolish personal income tax in favor of a national sales tax', do you? Something revenue neutral, no doubt, leaving the spending power of the federal bureaucracies intact at their present level, or perhaps at a level prevailing two or three or five years ago, right"
Nope, I'm talking about right now. And making it so the government cannot BORROW money, either. Make them work off of the revenues. There are states which already operate that way - so why not the fed?
Oh, do shut up. If you get your panties in a twist over "scary" candidates, then why would you support a carpetbagging, lying, racist church attending, socialist mentored, term quitting nobody like Obama back in 2008?
====
Solely because I didn't want a Pentecostal one heartbeat away from the presidency. Regardless, considering her record, Palin would have quit by now.
Incompetence is inexcusable, whether Palin or Obama. We should draft the brightest and wisest into the top roles.
The real problem is that we only have two major parties. You can't cram 350 million Americans into one side or the other.
.
How DARE that monster of a Palin be a low-church Protestant!
I'm Roman Catholic myself, but my paternal grandparents converted to Pentecostal back before I was born. They donated a patch of farmland to the local congregation to build a church, and when I was a kid I helped my father (who remained Catholic) to hang siding on the little clapboard structure.
Got to know the local Pentecostals quite well. Nice folks. A helluva lot nicer than the scheming thieves who worship at the socialist altar.
I think your real worry, slappy, is that enough Americans are going to "cram" themselves into the voting booths this November to send a whole bunch of elected officers to Washington who are formally dedicated to preventing legislation not explicitly authorized under the enumerated powers articulated in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Scares the wetness right out of you, doesn't it?
--
That's the problem with the Religious Right which has hijacked the Republican party.
I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I want to abolish personal income tax in favor of a national sales tax. I want to penalize the employers of illegal immigrants to stop the flow of jobs. I want to make sure that separation of church and state stays that way.
I don't want your morals imposed on me. As long as I am not harming others via my personal moral practices, you can mind your own damn business.
.
.
Hey, jerri? Don't you get it yet? The more pants-filling noise you make about how "the tea party will ruin the gop," the more thoroughly you make the point for the ongoing TEA Party purge of the Republican silver-spoon "go along to get along" establishment.
Hey, if you fascists (or are you back to calling yourselves "progressives" again this week?) want those RINO scumbuckets, why not invite them to cross the aisle - a la Arlen Specter - and formally join your socialist party?
Didn't that just work out SO well for that Pennsylvania hypocrite?
--
At least Michele Obama wrote her own paper, can read and knows where things are on a map. If the press would stop keeping her in the forefront she would go away as a brief bad mistake of as the stomach churns. Please LET THIS WOMAN GO!
Most of us with academic experience both as undergraduates and in grad schools of various kinds have known creatures like Michele Obama.
Known 'em well, actually. They specialize in presenting a facade of intelligence and competence, with no more of real substance behind the masquerade than you'll find atmosphere inside a functional incandescent lightbulb.
And they burn out just as quickly the instant they spring a leak.
--
I personally would like you to do a little thinking.
When your empty-headed leaders (like Miss Sarah P) make statements
like we need to cut this, cut that, etc, ... Please ask for specifics.
Balanced Budget? How ???
What are you going to cut ???
No ambiguous answers will do.
SPECIFICS.
You can't govern a nation as diverse and important as ours with 140 character tweets, now can you?
And it takes a heck of a lot less than 140 characters to say "hope and change", genius.