Master Index of Archived Threads


Palin: what now?

A Boy Named Seo Nov 05 2008 10:29 PM

Is she the next star of the GOP? Or back to relative anonymity in Moose Port? Seems peeps are turning on her some. I call Bobby Jindal in 2012.

Nymr83 Nov 05 2008 11:09 PM

I think she goes back to Alaska and governs. She may run for President down the line but I don't think it will be in 2012. I know some people have mentioned the Senate but isn't that a step down from the governorship? I know Warner and others have done it but it just doesn't seem right for her, the personality she has (or at least projects) doesn't say "obscure member of the Senate from Alaska."

Willets Point Nov 05 2008 11:14 PM

I think she goes back to 30 Rock.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 05 2008 11:23 PM

Nymr83 wrote: I think she goes back to Alaska and governs. She may run for President down the line but I don't think it will be in 2012. I know some people have mentioned the Senate but isn't that a step down from the governorship? I know Warner and others have done it but it just doesn't seem right for her, the personality she has (or at least projects) doesn't say "obscure member of the Senate from Alaska." I don't think the Senate is a step down. It keeps her in DC, commenting on national issues. You're not going to ask a governor about, say, troop withdrawal in Iraq, but you'll ask a senator. Anchorage is a long way from the spotlight. I think the people in the campaign blaming her are covering their asses. Can't be their fault, of course. I think over time people will realize that the media bludgeoning of Palin was unfair and will turn more sympathetic for her. She drew huge crowds wherever she went on the campaign, her debate and convention speeches drew huge ratings, and of course her SNL appearance was off the charts. So clearly there is star power there. It might not play in the urban areas, but it sure does out here. I'm sure she'll be in demand as a speaker and fund-raiser, collecting IOUs for when she finally makes another move.

Nymr83 Nov 05 2008 11:35 PM

]I don't think the Senate is a step down. It keeps her in DC, commenting on national issues. You're not going to ask a governor about, say, troop withdrawal in Iraq, but you'll ask a senator. Anchorage is a long way from the spotlight. Sure it keeps her in DC, but maybe DC isnt the place to be for someone who, if she runs, will undoubtedly be running as the reformer of the evils of big government and washington corruption ]I think the people in the campaign blaming her are covering their asses. Can't be their fault, of course. thats pretty clear ]I think over time people will realize that the media bludgeoning of Palin was unfair and will turn more sympathetic for her. the media treatment of Palin was sexist and partisan at the same time. They wouldn't treat a man that way and they wouldn't treat a woman democrat that way, its the idea that a woman doesn't believe in their agenda that bothers them so much. ]She drew huge crowds wherever she went on the campaign, her debate and convention speeches drew huge ratings, and of course her SNL appearance was off the charts. shes a good speaker but not the natural that Obama is. Anyone is going to seem like a good speaker after 8 years of Bush press conferences. I think the SNL ratings were a curiosity thing, particularly on the part of those who were very interested in seeing her but wouldnt watch the RNC or VP debate. ]So clearly there is star power there. It might not play in the urban areas, but it sure does out here. I'm sure she'll be in demand as a speaker and fund-raiser, collecting IOUs for when she finally makes another move. well thats politics, as pathetically displayed by the Clintons who were oh so obviously only "helping out" to help retire her campaign debt and maybe not burn bridges for her 2012 run if Obama had lost.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 04:36 AM

I think she should spend the next two years (since that's when the next Presidential campaign will begin) polishing her act. I don't think she's quite as dumb as she came across as; instead she just hasn't learned how to handle the scrutiny. She was undoubtedly popular with a lot of people, but unpopular with more, including myself. I do expect her to run for President, either in 2012 or 2016, but unless she reinvents herself, I don't see her getting a nomination. And she can't win the presidency unless she does something about those huge unfavorable ratings that she has. (And she has four or eight years in which to do that.)

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 06 2008 06:17 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ]I think over time people will realize that the media bludgeoning of Palin was unfair and will turn more sympathetic for her. the media treatment of Palin was sexist and partisan at the same time. They wouldn't treat a man that way and they wouldn't treat a woman democrat that way, its the idea that a woman doesn't believe in their agenda that bothers them so much. Actually, as it turns out, the media were far too sympathetic to Palin: She thought Africa is a country and didn't know which countries are in NAFTA. "Unprepared" is not nearly strong enough a word to describe her.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 06 2008 06:29 AM

I don't believe that. I just don't. That's campaign staff covering their asses so they can get hired again.

themetfairy Nov 06 2008 06:32 AM

I think that Palin's true calling is as a pundit. She plays well on television and enjoys that kind of limelight.

metirish Nov 06 2008 06:36 AM

If she is the future for the Republicans then they are on for a long wait on the outside. I find her clueless on even the most basic common knowledge things regarding America, stuff I remember learning in school in a different country. I don't think she is the future and that there will be better people to hang your hat on down the line.

MFS62 Nov 06 2008 06:43 AM

As time has passed, time hasn't made Dan Quayle any more of a sympathetic figure. He is still recognized as being unfit to be a heartbeat from the Presidency. And I feel Palin will be treated the same way - nor more or less kindly. As for the near term, if the recently-indicted/convicted Senator from Alaska (forget his name) leaves his seat, Palin can appoint herself to fill his vacant seat. Later

Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 07:06 AM

For now? -- back to being Governor only with a much higher profile than before Future Prez candidate on her own? -- Highly doubt it. Fronting a ticket is much different than being #2 Beyond Governor? -- Possibly a cabinet post if the right Prez/situation comes up (Interior?, Energy?, Education?) where adminstrative skills come into play. Or maybe a place within the national Republican party, a role with media exposure where she could plan with and/or rally troops of like-minded souls in fund-raising, volunteerism, etc.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 07:08 AM

themetfairy wrote: I think that Palin's true calling is as a pundit. She plays well on television and enjoys that kind of limelight. Blammo. She's a former pageant contestant and TV newsreader. She could have her own show on Fox News. And I agree some of the coverage was sexist and unfair but she's a fucking idiot all the same.

Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 07:09 AM

If she didn't know Africa wasn't a single country, it isn't the media that hid it, it's the staffers. Off the record is off the record. If that's true, hoo boy.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 07:43 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Future Prez candidate on her own? -- Highly doubt it. Fronting a ticket is much different than being #2 Oh, I think she'll be a candidate. Probably not a nominee, but I suspect she'll be doing the Iowa/New Hampshire visits two years from now. Or perhaps six years from now. If she did get nominated, it would be a big error by her party. I don't see her getting elected unless the Democrats nominate a similarly poor candidate, which is always a possibility.

HahnSolo Nov 06 2008 07:52 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Oh, I think she'll be a candidate. Probably not a nominee, but I suspect she'll be doing the Iowa/New Hampshire visits two years from now. Or perhaps six years from now. If she did get nominated, it would be a big error by her party. I don't see her getting elected unless the Democrats nominate a similarly poor candidate, which is always a possibility. I agree. It's a long cycle between elections. I distinctly remember the "Quayle in '96" cries after the '92 election from a lot of Republicans. It's similar to what I'm sensing now. There's plenty of time for their party to come to their senses. Plus, if they think she's a hot candidate and Obama has a good first term, they may not want to waste her in what could be a losing campaign. They'll throw a Bob Dole like sacrificial lamb out there in '12.

Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 07:59 AM

I kind of think they just did.

Vic Sage Nov 06 2008 08:32 AM

she can continue to sell her MILFish ass to the guns & god crowd, but she's become a national punchline and her future is to take her notoriety to the one place fame and infamy are indistinguishable... Fox News. She can form the unholiest of holy trinities with Pat "what holocaust?" Buchanan and Bill "no spin... O'Really?" O'Reilly.

Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 08:35 AM

Buchanan hangs out at MSNBC

Vic Sage Nov 06 2008 08:51 AM

that would work, too. Actually, they could probably start their own network together, and call it "Conversations with Real American People", i.e., CRAP TV.

metirish Nov 06 2008 08:55 AM

Not a pressing matter but I wonder how shows like Keith Olbermann's will evolve , he made his show these past years hammering Bush and the like, with his guy getting elected now what?

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 06 2008 08:56 AM

metirish wrote: Not a pressing matter but I wonder how shows like Keith Olbermann's will evolve , he made his show these past years hammering Bush and the like, with his guy getting elected now what? More importantly, will the Daily Show still be funny?

Willets Point Nov 06 2008 08:56 AM

Holding Obama's feet to the fire.

Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 09:08 AM

Olberman has got to do something other than his constant hammering of O'Reilly before it becomes a worthwhile show. At some point these media types need to realize that while their intramural squabbles may be interesting to them they're not interesting to teh rest of us.

RealityChuck Nov 06 2008 09:09 AM

Re: Palin Pundit -- never. She's a terrible speaker when not given a script and seems completely unable to talk off the cuff. The clearest example of this was at a rally when her supporters couldn't hear her. They started chanting "Speak Louder." Other supporters started chanting in her support. Palin, who probably couldn't hear the original chant came up with a canned line about how protesters should honor the veterans who made their right to protest possible. OK, that was just a mishearing. But when someone told her what they were actually chanting, she made no acknowledgment. Any speaker worth his or her salt would have said something like, "Speak louder? I'll speak loud enough for them to hear us all the way to Washington!" But Palin could not come up with anything to say and just went on with her speech. And listen to any of her off-the-cuff statments -- they ramble and repeat themselves until she thinks of a new catchphrase. It just isn't going to work in a position where you're ad-libbing everything you say. Senator -- possible. Washington is where the action is, not Juneau (trivia -- there are no roads in or out to the city -- you need to take a ferry, plane, or boat). Her road there would be convoluted -- Stevens must win, resign, then Sarah can resign and have her successor appoint her -- but possible. In DC, she will be in contact with the national press in ways she couldn't in Alaska (though she tried, even before being nominated). Governor -- fallback position, obviously. She can finish out her term and then begin to develop a campaign organization. It's a lot easier for an ex-governor to run than a senator. As far as 2012, she's going to run. She has a base among the most dedicated Republicans, and will be formidable if no far-right candidate runs (The only stronger candidate from that wing is Huckabee, who is also acceptable to more moderate Republicans). The issues with her candidacy will have been forgotten by her fans. Whether she gets the nomination is another question, but there are plenty of Republican voters who thought McCain was not conservative enough.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 09:19 AM

="RealityChuck"] Senator Her road there would be convoluted -- Stevens must win, resign, then Sarah can resign and have her successor appoint her -- but possible. In DC, she will be in contact with the national press in ways she couldn't in Alaska (though she tried, even before being nominated). Her road to the Senate would be more direct than that. If Stevens wins and then resigns (or is evicted) she'd just have to win a special election. Alaska doesn't allow for the governor to appoint a senator.

themetfairy Nov 06 2008 09:39 AM

Vic Sage wrote: she can continue to sell her MILFish ass to the guns & god crowd, Soon to be GILFish

sharpie Nov 06 2008 09:39 AM

Republicans would have to extend their brand past the South and small-town America. Palin doesn't do that. John Boehner was right in saying that you can't just write off the Northeast, West Coast and most of the Midwest and hope to win.

HahnSolo Nov 06 2008 09:39 AM

Senate is not necessarily the best road to the White House. Obama is the first senator since JFK to win the election, but we've had a slew of former governors.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 06 2008 11:06 AM

HahnSolo wrote: Senate is not necessarily the best road to the White House. Obama is the first senator since JFK to win the election, but we've had a slew of former governors. True, and here are the states: Bush: Texas Clinton: Arkansas (Bush: All kinds of jobs, VP) Reagan: California Carter: Georgia (Ford: House, VP) (Nixon: Senate, VP) (Johnson: Senate, VP) (Kennedy: Senate) (Eisenhower: Military) Roosevelt: New York (Hoover: Cabinet)

Gwreck Nov 06 2008 11:10 AM

Nymr83 wrote: I know some people have mentioned the Senate but isn't that a step down from the governorship? In terms of a presidential stepping-stone, yes. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter were all former governors. ]I know Warner and others have done it I think the Virginia governorship is term-limited to one four-year term. If he gets re-elected as senator in 2014, Warner certainly is a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

Willets Point Nov 06 2008 11:12 AM

Gwreck wrote: I think the Virginia governorship is term-limited to one four-year term. This is true.

metirish Nov 06 2008 11:26 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Olberman has got to do something other than his constant hammering of O'Reilly before it becomes a worthwhile show. At some point these media types need to realize that while their intramural squabbles may be interesting to them they're not interesting to teh rest of us. I missed this , I agree. O'Reilly apparently now ignores Olbermann , has done for a while but Keith pounds on him every night. I do find it funny when he puts on his Rupert Murdoch accent....arrgh

Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 11:30 AM

I really have to wish Palin well, but this question concerns me not. The guy who won the big chair is the story. The impact on cable lineups is about one millionth on my list of post-election concerns.

Iubitul Nov 06 2008 11:44 AM

Some of the people here sound like the Phillies...

themetfairy Nov 06 2008 12:01 PM

Nah - people around here are all pretty good about stringing words together to form coherent sentences.

Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 12:12 PM

metirish wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]Olberman has got to do something other than his constant hammering of O'Reilly before it becomes a worthwhile show. At some point these media types need to realize that while their intramural squabbles may be interesting to them they're not interesting to teh rest of us. I missed this , I agree. O'Reilly apparently now ignores Olbermann , has done for a while but Keith pounds on him every night. I do find it funny when he puts on his Rupert Murdoch accent....arrgh I don't have a dog in this fight as I rarely watch either and they can throw bombs at each other all night long for all I care. But Olberman sounds absolutely obsessed with O'Reilly -- possibly because he's getting his butt kicked by him ratings-wise. At one point I did flick by KO's show each night for a week and on 4 of them I tuned in right in the middle of an anti-BO'R rant.

RealityChuck Nov 06 2008 01:20 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: ="metirish"] Frayed Knot wrote: Olberman has got to do something other than his constant hammering of O'Reilly before it becomes a worthwhile show. At some point these media types need to realize that while their intramural squabbles may be interesting to them they're not interesting to teh rest of us. I missed this , I agree. O'Reilly apparently now ignores Olbermann , has done for a while but Keith pounds on him every night. I do find it funny when he puts on his Rupert Murdoch accent....arrgh I don't have a dog in this fight as I rarely watch either and they can throw bombs at each other all night long for all I care. But Olberman sounds absolutely obsessed with O'Reilly -- possibly because he's getting his butt kicked by him ratings-wise. Actually, it's the other way around. Olbermann has been creeping up in the ratings and has beaten O'Reilly several days in the past few weeks. O'Reilly pretends that Olbermann doesn't bother him, but he's definitely obsessed with MSNBC (when he lost in the ratings for a few nights, he claimed that there was a "Neilson conspiracy" to keep his ratings down). He just won't mention it by name. Olbermann has used O'Reilly to increase his ratings, and attacks with humor. O'Reilly pretends to ignore him, but refers to him obliquely and attacks viciously. Now that MSNBC occasionally challenges in the ratings (Olbermann gleefully admits that, even with the occasional win, his ratings are not consistently better), he's really bothered. He claims he doesn't care about critics, but he's often gone after them behind the scenes.

Willets Point Nov 06 2008 01:30 PM

I really like McCain's smile in panel 3.

Nymr83 Nov 06 2008 01:43 PM

McCain deserves a rest. Disconnect the phone, lock the door, and enjoy being married to a much younger woman.

Willets Point Nov 06 2008 02:24 PM

Nymr83 wrote: McCain deserves a rest. Disconnect the phone, lock the door, and enjoy being married to a much younger woman. And then return to being a pretty good senator and only needing to please the Arizona constituency. Obama should award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to McCain.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 02:33 PM

I'll second that. I always liked McCain. (I wish he had won the nomination in 2000.) He did a good job of driving down my opinion of him during the last few months, but I'll get over it. My daughter has been cheering Obama and booing McCain for the last few months, but I've always tried to discourage the booing. Just because you're not voting for someone it's not necessary to dislike him. (Although sometimes it does work out that way.)

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 06 2008 02:38 PM

Does the Presidential Medal of Freedom still mean anything if George Tenet has one? Like how gold gloves mean nothing since Rafael Palmeiro got one in 99?

Iubitul Nov 06 2008 03:00 PM

="Benjamin Grimm"] I always liked McCain. (I wish he had won the nomination in 2000.) Same here.

Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 03:01 PM

]Actually, it's the other way around. Olbermann has been creeping up in the ratings and has beaten O'Reilly several days in the past few weeks. O'Reilly pretends that Olbermann doesn't bother him, but he's definitely obsessed with MSNBC (when he lost in the ratings for a few nights, he claimed that there was a "Neilson conspiracy" to keep his ratings down). He just won't mention it by name The ratings is an impression I've gotten from various sources although I don't follow it regularly. Olberman's obsession with O'R was a personal observation based on seeing it seemingly everytime I flipped by. I know O'Reilly loves to target the whole NBC News umbrella in general although much of that could be code for Olberman specifically. In general, my observation is that the righties on FOX love to wear it as a badge of pride everytime they're "savaged" by the liberal press; "STAY TUNED TO HEAR HOW MY COMMENTS WERE TWISTED BY THOSE FLAKES OVER AT MSNBC" while the MSNBC folks go out of their way to point out every perceived mistake by FOX no matter how trivial; "they said it's 64 degrees and it's really 61 ... SEE, THEY'RE STILL DENYING GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 03:19 PM

If you're using your air time to promote or advance a rivalry with a competing brand, can you really be trusted as a news source at all?

HahnSolo Nov 07 2008 06:55 AM

="Iubitul"] ="Benjamin Grimm"] I always liked McCain. (I wish he had won the nomination in 2000.) Same here. I think the people who liked the McCain of 2000 forget that in order for him to win the nomination then, he would have had to cater to the same sectors of the party that he did this time. In the end I think we got the same McCain this time that we would have ended up with back then, only a lot older.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 07:03 AM

Perhaps. But had McCain won the nomination, George W. Bush would not have, and we would've had a different president, either McCain or Gore, for the last eight years. (Or at least, four of the last eight years.) And that's the main thing, as far as I'm concerned.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 07 2008 01:18 PM

Edgy DC wrote: If you're using your air time to promote or advance a rivalry with a competing brand, can you really be trusted as a news source at all? TV news = info-tainment As for the cable talk shows, they're inching closer and closer to what Colbert is making fun of. Read your newspapers instead!

HahnSolo Nov 07 2008 02:13 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: ="Edgy DC"]If you're using your air time to promote or advance a rivalry with a competing brand, can you really be trusted as a news source at all? TV news = info-tainment As for the cable talk shows, they're inching closer and closer to what Colbert is making fun of. Read your newspapers instead! Unfortunately, in New York, we now have Mike Lupica deciding that he's a political columnist. Which I guess only means I skip his columns in two sections rather than one.

metirish Nov 07 2008 02:17 PM

HahnSolo wrote: ="metsguyinmichigan"] ="Edgy DC"]If you're using your air time to promote or advance a rivalry with a competing brand, can you really be trusted as a news source at all? TV news = info-tainment As for the cable talk shows, they're inching closer and closer to what Colbert is making fun of. Read your newspapers instead! Unfortunately, in New York, we now have Mike Lupica deciding that he's a political columnist. Which I guess only means I skip his columns in two sections rather than one. I know right ? , what I find hilarious about Lupica the political journalist is that he writes it the same way as his sports columns.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 02:19 PM

What I find hilarious about Lupica is that he's a little pipsqueak who thinks he's a tough guy. Thirty years ago I thought he was great. Maybe even twenty years ago. Now he's just unbearable.

Frayed Knot Nov 07 2008 02:33 PM

Lupica is merely joining the line of sports people deciding that they need something more substantial on their resumes than fun and games: Bryant Gumbel, Cosell, Olberman come to mind.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 02:37 PM

I also get a kick out of people who write in to the Daily News and say that Lupica should stay on the sports pages "where he belongs."

Edgy DC Nov 07 2008 02:37 PM

Tony Kornheiser, unfunny humor columnist.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 07 2008 02:41 PM

It kind of bothers me when political stuff creeps into areas that I like to be politics-free (noting that he says this in a basbeall forum, though in a niche of it dedicated to politics.) But I don't want political slams in my comics, unless, like Doonesbury, it's pretty much a polticial cartoon. I don't want to go to pay to see Madonna or Bruce Springsteen and have to listen to their political rants. If they appear at a rally, that's fine. But don't ask me to pay $80 to hear you throw cheap shots at Sarah Palin. We're bombarded by so much political stuff that I go to enterinment to escape it. (Steps off soapbox)

Edgy DC Nov 07 2008 02:49 PM

I don't want political slams anywhere. I want WWF free politics. And, if slam-less, then it's welcome anywhere in American life it can exist. If a rock star wants to tell me how he feels about everything, it's his or her perogative. I can take my dollars elswhere if I feel strongly. I usually won't. If they create a hostile atmosphere for minority opinions, I may take a walk whether I agree or not. The risk of marginalizing yourself is part of politics also. When does honest speech on anything become political speech? With Springsteen, it's sure hard to tell. I can't imagine her politics making me less interested in seeing Madonna. If Palin really said that shit about Africa, why are we reading stupid reports about her clothes. Who give a shit about her clothes?

Edgy DC Nov 07 2008 02:52 PM

I make exceptions for churches. I don't want no tax-free church giving a pulpit to a candidate, hosting a fundraiser for a candidate, or endorsing a candidate.

Nymr83 Nov 07 2008 05:12 PM

Unfair that a church should be barred from endorsing candidates while other un-taxed groups exist solely to promote candidates and political ideas.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2008 06:51 PM

Unfair that churches aren't taxed, but that's just me.

Nymr83 Nov 08 2008 02:23 AM

if churches should be taxed then so should charities, political action groups, and anyone else who isn't. but i dont think churches should be taxed and i think doing so may be a 1st amendment issue.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 08 2008 05:41 AM

They should pay tax on their real estate. Not on the donations they receive.

Kong76 Nov 08 2008 05:53 AM

They should pay taxes if their gig is profitable. Nothing irks me more than seeing a priest or a rabbi driving around in a Mercedes Benz.

sharpie Nov 08 2008 10:53 AM

I think if you're going to see Bruce Springsteen or Steve Earle or whomever you know you're going to get a dose of politics with your music. You probably get it on the other side with Alan Jackson, et al. I have no issue with it so long as it doesn't take over the show and you lose some songs because they're talking about their issues.

MFS62 Nov 08 2008 11:44 AM

KC wrote: They should pay taxes if their gig is profitable. Nothing irks me more than seeing a priest or a rabbi driving around in a Mercedes Benz. I'm not sure if those aren't treated as taxable income. Even if they are part of their compensation, cars should be treated the same as if an employee of a company receives the use of a leased car. Any use of the car beyond "company business" is considered taxable. I know when our Rabbi left our congregation to join a larger one on the upper West Side of Manhattan, his salary was over $200K. The key word should be "salary". I'm pretty sure he has to file a tax return. When he was with our congregation, he was a "salaried" employee and it was W-2 income. Can't answer about other religions or congregations. Later

Nymr83 Nov 08 2008 12:46 PM

yes, employees of a religious org. pay taxes on their personal income just like everyone else.

TheOldMole Nov 08 2008 02:09 PM

You certainly get it with Lee Greenwood and Hank Jr.

Kong76 Nov 08 2008 02:21 PM

I incorrectly assumed that they paid taxes, I guess. I suppose the Benz is really property of the church too and if the said father were to go elsewhere the car would remain with the parish. Still, church donations (to me) should be for heat, hot water, and upkeep ... not German luxury cars.