[smacintush]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

I don't know her personally. She might be a fabulous person. She just wasn't very good at Governor.

I don't either, but does (or DID) she not enjoy pretty high approval ratings?

After all, what you actually DO is irrelevant, it's how much they like you, right?

[kobi]

Palin's made the big time!

Now she's got her own entry in the Urban Dictionary.

Pullin' a Palin

1. Quitting when the going gets tough; abandoning the responsibility entrusted to you by your neighbors for book advances and to make money on the lecture circuit.

2. Bizarre move that will damn ambitions for higher office.

I bet when people saw Jade they were convinced that David Caruso was pullin' a Palin.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

At the rate the Republican party is self imploding, would the Republican party still be around in 2012?

Don't you mean the Whig/GOP party?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Now she's got her own entry in the Urban Dictionary.

It must be true, because like Wiki, the what's written on teh intarwebs is always true

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It must be true, because like Wiki, the what's written on teh intarwebs is always true

-t

There's no dispute here about what's true or false.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It must be true, because like Wiki, the what's written on teh intarwebs is always true

-t

Urban dictionary doesn't claim to be making statements of fact, but rather statements of opinion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Palin's made the big time!

Now she's got her own entry in the Urban Dictionary.

Didn't Rahm Emanuel abandon his post for career aspirations like countless other Democrats? Janet Napolitano? Gov. Kathleen Sebellius?

Seems to me, "pullin' a Palin" is applying a rigid criteria to people you don't like while offering passes to those you do.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Didn't Rahm Emanuel abandon his post for career aspirations like countless other Democrats? Janet Napolitano? Gov. Kathleen Sebellius?

So did Barack Obama, don't forget.

And each one took on a position of greater governmental responsibility immediately afterward, except for Palin, who last I've heard has gone fishing.

If Palin wants to resign her post (and not for a promotion), that's her call, but don't do so and say it demonstrates political leadership. Personally, I'd rather be fishing too than working as a government employee, but then I don't call myself a political leader.

[Chongo]

Someone pointed out Palin is in the old "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" scenario. The people who are calling her a quitter would be the same ones complaining she can't govern because she is too busy dealing with all the "ethics charges" (all have been dismissed) being brought against her.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Didn't Rahm Emanuel abandon his post for career aspirations like countless other Democrats? Janet Napolitano? Gov. Kathleen Sebellius?

Seems to me, "pullin' a Palin" is applying a rigid criteria to people you don't like while offering passes to those you do.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So did Barack Obama, don't forget.

He spent most of the time running for POTUS, even after he pledged to complete his term before doing so.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Urban dictionary doesn't claim to be making statements of fact, but rather statements of opinion.

I failed at conveying sarcasm.

-t

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Didn't Rahm Emanuel abandon his post for career aspirations like countless other Democrats? Janet Napolitano? Gov. Kathleen Sebellius?

Seems to me, "pullin' a Palin" is applying a rigid criteria to people you don't like while offering passes to those you do.

I'm not the one who made up "pullin a palin" I wish I did........great line at parties.

It would be different if Palin had a job lined up before quitting..........but she doesn't.

Did she dash all hopes for a run for President in 2012..........likely.

Will she still run and not make it out of the primary..........yes.

Has the Right turned on her and attacking her for quitting...........you betcha!

Looks like the motive was purely about money (book deals, speeches and the like) and the reasons she gave for quitting have been proven false.

If there's anything to learned from this............quit only when you have another job lined up.

Trust me Rahm, Sebellius, and Napolitano will still be involved in politics after their jobs are over. Plus they all have job security for at least the next 8 years.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Someone pointed out Palin is in the old "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" scenario. The people who are calling her a quitter would be the same ones complaining she can't govern because she is too busy dealing with all the "ethics charges" (all have been dismissed) being brought against her.

Ahem. There's new ethics charges filed against Palin as of 7/6/09, so not all have been dismissed.

Seems like you can't sleep in your own house and bill the State of Alaska for it, even if your the Governor.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Ahem. There's new ethics charges filed against Palin as of 7/6/09, so not all have been dismissed.

Seems like you can't sleep in your own house and bill the State of Alaska for it, even if your the Governor.

The per diem was brought up from the get go, so it's not a "new charge" and once again Alinsky's "Rules" at work.

BTW, The Huffing on Compost is hardly the place to get (R) or conservatives take on Palin.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Huffing on Compost

Really? Really?

HuffPoo is funnier.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't either, but does (or DID) she not enjoy pretty high approval ratings?

After all, what you actually DO is irrelevant, it's how much they like you, right?

Not according to stupenousman.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which as I've said before is a very sad commentary in regards to the people of his (Barney Frank) state. When they can continually send such a corrupt and incompetent man to Washington when I'm sure there are better candidates, it reflects very poorly on them. You couldn't pay me a million dollars to move to Mass. and have to deal with the idiots that surely reside there. Even the people of Conn. seem to be learning their lesson in regards to Chris Dodd (Barney's evil, straight twin), which is good for them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So did Barack Obama, don't forget.

And each one took on a position of greater governmental responsibility immediately afterward, except for Palin, who last I've heard has gone fishing.

If Palin wants to resign her post (and not for a promotion), that's her call, but don't do so and say it demonstrates political leadership. Personally, I'd rather be fishing too than working as a government employee, but then I don't call myself a political leader.

She was still governor while pictured fishing btw, but I can see why this would be useful for leftist shilling.

I suppose we're both guilty of invoking clairvoyance here as I believe her aspirations could very well include a position of greater governmental responsibility; starting with getting Republicans into office in 2010. Her move appears to be driven by three immediate factors;

1. getting out from under the absolutely relentless onslaught of frivolous litigation costing her and her family an immense amount of money.
2. making money from book deals and speeches (all of which detract from her elected capacity as governor) not only to pay for the consequences above, but to bolster an eventual campaign coffer for herself or her party.
3. Use her popularity to garner support for Republican candidates across the country for a win-back of seats in 2010.

... and one eventual possibility;

• Using her popularity to increase Republican numbers in the house and senate could very well position her as a strong candidate for President in 2012. Contingent of course on the success or failure of her efforts.

All the above have greater potential than the seemingly invisible "responsibilities" accepted by Rahm Emanuel.

Those who maintain she's quitting to avoid the personal attacks are sadly mistaken. I have a hunch what she'll be up to in the next year, again will make the current degree of attacks look like a walk in the park.

[OreoCookie]

@ebuddy
If Palin wants to play in the big league of politics, then why didn't she say so at her resignation speech? Wouldn't you agree that this would have been a very good venue to announce aspirations to enter national politics?

[Chuckit]

I don't know. Palin's announcements are best made through other people who can speak.

[screener]

Peggy Noonan on Palin,

"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.

Pretty much in a nutshell.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't know. Palin's announcements are best made through other people who can speak.

Statements like these make it readily apparent as to why the politicians on both sides are able to continue to screw the american public on a daily basis. We're more worried about making pointless jabs based on socially constructed perceptions than whats actually going on in this country.

Its time to wake up people...you didn't think all this change that the country wanted so desperately was going to be taken care of for us did you?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The per diem was brought up from the get go, so it's not a "new charge" and once again Alinsky's "Rules" at work.

BTW, The Huffing on Compost is hardly the place to get (R) or conservatives take on Palin.

Two words for you. Reading Comprehension.

Yes the Washington Post broke the story of the pier diem charges on Palin in September of 08'

On 7/6/09 formal charges were filed against Palin for the "pier diem" charges. Thus this creates "new charges".

Again Reading Comprehension. Jeezus.

Also I prefer Machiavelli to Alinsky. I suggest you read "The Prince" you might learn something.

Since your not a fan of Huff Post here's the link to the Washington Post for you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Two words for you. Reading Comprehension.

Yes the Washington Post broke the story of the pier diem charges on Palin in September of 08'

On 7/6/09 formal charges were filed against Palin for the "pier diem" charges. Thus this creates "new charges".

Again Reading Comprehension. Jeezus.

Also I prefer Machiavelli to Alinsky. I suggest you read "The Prince" you might learn something.

Since your not a fan of Huff Post here's the link to the Washington Post for you.

So if this new "damning" evidence turns up as little as all the other frivolous BS accusations have, are you going to pop back in here and admit you're nothing more than a leftist automaton?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@ebuddy
If Palin wants to play in the big league of politics, then why didn't she say so at her resignation speech? Wouldn't you agree that this would have been a very good venue to announce aspirations to enter national politics?

Because the speculation is better pub than any formal announcement for one thing. For another thing, (If I'm correct in my analysis) whether or not she runs will be contingent upon her party's judgment of her effectiveness at drumming up support for Republicans in 2010.

i.e. there's no reason for her to invoke more attention from the leftist attack machine before she knows whether or not it'll be worth the fight.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Since your not a fan of Huff Post here's the link to the Washington Post for you.

You do know that The Post was founded in 1877 "to advance Democratic Party views"

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Statements like these make it readily apparent as to why the politicians on both sides are able to continue to screw the american public on a daily basis. We're more worried about making pointless jabs based on socially constructed perceptions than whats actually going on in this country.

I'm perfectly capable of paying attention to the state of the country while sassing annoying politicians at the same time.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You do know that The Post was founded in 1877 "to advance Democratic Party views"

You do know that the Democratic Party, in 1877, was quite different than the Democratic Party today?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You do know that the Democratic Party, in 1877, was quite different than the Democratic Party today?

Yeah, there not so quite open on their plans to enslave the masses as they were then.

[Chongo]

Well we do know what her plans are now.

"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation," she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Well we do know what her plans are now.

Fortunately, any smart politician will know to say "thanks, but no thanks" to her offers.

[Chuckit]

I'm sure she'll do the "regardless of party label or affiliation" thing just as well as Obama did.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Fortunately, any smart politician will know to say "thanks, but no thanks" to her offers.

Well like her or not, 80% of the right and 45% of the middle actually like her.

But then the press hates her so…whatever.

[ironknee]

and the "base" loves her... explains it all

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So if this new "damning" evidence turns up as little as all the other frivolous BS accusations have, are you going to pop back in here and admit you're nothing more than a leftist automaton?

I'll do that as soon as you admit your nothing but a troll for the Right.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well like her or not, 80% of the right and 45% of the middle actually like her.

But then the press hates her so…whatever.

When 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republican's and only 80% of them support Palin, your only talking 16.8%.

With only 21% of America being Republican, your not going to win any elections. So how is Palin going to win anything with only 16.8% of the Republican vote?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Well we do know what her plans are now.

"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation," she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.

By "right things" she really means, show me the money!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

With only 21% of America being Republican, your not going to win any elections. So how is Palin going to win anything with only 16.8% of the Republican vote?

With all due respect, this is simpleton thinking at its finest. 40% of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate, and 21% liberal. The tide is shifting most among the moderates and independents.

It might shock you to know that many people don't vote blindly down the party line anyway.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I'll do that as soon as you admit your nothing but a troll for the Right.

Keep me updated on the case against Palin. I might just have to admit I'm a troll for the right. Fair enough?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Keep me updated on the case against Palin. I might just have to admit I'm a troll for the right. Fair enough?

Fair enough. I have it iCal'ed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect, this is simpleton thinking at its finest. 40% of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate, and 21% liberal. The tide is shifting most among the moderates and independents.

It might shock you to know that many people don't vote blindly down the party line anyway.

I actually am a Republican and I'd never vote for this woman.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect, this is simpleton thinking at its finest. 40% of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate, and 21% liberal. The tide is shifting most among the moderates and independents.

It might shock you to know that many people don't vote blindly down the party line anyway.

Oh I know people don't blindly vote the party line, it would be foolish to think otherwise. Remember all the self described Republican's that voted for Obama in the general?

I'm sorry but your going to have to provide some links to your supposed "40% of Americans say they are Conservative" as I call BS.

The Republican party is shattered, broken, and imploding. Who's leading the GOP? Rush, Steele, Palin, Gingrich, Boehner? They don't even know, as they are all pushing their own agendas.

If 40% of Americans were conservative the GOP would be thriving........but it's not.

Fundraising would be through the roof.......it's not, in fact it's down.

The GOP is quickly becoming the new Whig party, and there's serious doubt as to how long there will be a Republican party in it's current form.

Look as long as the US is a recession, the GOP has no chance in making a comeback. The failures of the last 8 years (economy, 2 wars, rampant corruption, suspending parts of the constitution) ruined any chance of the GOP holding any significant political positions, for a long, long time. The midterms in 2010 will see Republican's losing more seats and positions.

I can't wait to see your links.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because the speculation is better pub than any formal announcement for one thing. For another thing, (If I'm correct in my analysis) whether or not she runs will be contingent upon her party's judgment of her effectiveness at drumming up support for Republicans in 2010.

i.e. there's no reason for her to invoke more attention from the leftist attack machine before she knows whether or not it'll be worth the fight.

Then why didn't she stay governor until, say, 2011 or so (assuming she'd like to run for president)?
You still view all of this through party-colored glasses instead of just analyzing the strategic value of her move. It doesn't really matter what she does or doesn't stand for and you're just trying to avoid admitting it wasn't an `ideal move' on her part to quit now. And without saying why.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Then why didn't she stay governor until, say, 2011 or so (assuming she'd like to run for president)?

I posted earlier in this thread "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't"

"Gov. Palin needs to step down. She cannot govern effectively because blah blah blah" or Sarah Palin is a "Podunk-hayseed-redneck-moose killing-salmon fishing-I can see Russia from my house-Caribou Barbie who wants to populate the world with retarded children-quitter" (did I miss anything?)

[OldManMac]

She ran for a job that she wanted. She won. She quit. There's no other way to disguise it. She should have known what she was in for. She quit. She's a quitter, and now she has people defending that. Tragic.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Oh I know people don't blindly vote the party line, it would be foolish to think otherwise. Remember all the self described Republican's that voted for Obama in the general?

Yes I do and they are the first to have abandoned him according to most polling data I've seen.

I'm sorry but your going to have to provide some links to your supposed "40% of Americans say they are Conservative" as I call BS.

This is not going well for you is it?
washingtontimes
gallup

The Republican party is shattered, broken, and imploding. Who's leading the GOP? Rush, Steele, Palin, Gingrich, Boehner? They don't even know, as they are all pushing their own agendas.

Who's leading the Democrat party? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? They don't even know because they're too busy imploding on one another over their own agendas. See how easy it is to troll without anything of substance to back the claim?

If 40% of Americans were conservative the GOP would be thriving........but it's not.

Again, this is really very simple kobi. The GOP did not govern conservatively. The elections in 2006 and the Presidential election of 2008 was a referendum on Republicans, not a mandate for Democrats or liberalism. With each new move made by this administration, more approval is lost. Obama's personal numbers remain high while each and every policy he's enacted declines. This will drag his personal approval rating down with it.

Fundraising would be through the roof.......it's not, in fact it's down.
The GOP is quickly becoming the new Whig party, and there's serious doubt as to how long there will be a Republican party in it's current form.

There will always be a Republican Party and as soon as they decide to govern from their platform as opposed to abandoning it for political expediency, they will return to the majority. Let's face it, liberal policy and the standard Democratic party platform is not popular enough to win nationally. That's why Obama had to run on fiscal responsibility, tax cuts, and Jesus of Nazareth. The great moderate pragmatist to transcend the party divide through transparency and bipartisanship has governed in a way that is anything, but transparent and bipartisan. His pragmatism has come only after the second or third attempts at a decision from watching polling numbers.

Look as long as the US is a recession, the GOP has no chance in making a comeback. The failures of the last 8 years (economy, 2 wars, rampant corruption, suspending parts of the constitution) ruined any chance of the GOP holding any significant political positions, for a long, long time. The midterms in 2010 will see Republican's losing more seats and positions.

Well... you've got a couple problems here kobi. Strictly numerically speaking, the Republicans will gain seats, the question is how many. As long as the US is in a recession, Obama's numbers will continue to decline. As long as the Democrats remain in the majority through this stagnant economy, there will be no one to remove, but Democrats. The ol' "It's Bush's fault" mentality is losing its credibility kobi. Trust me.
rasmussenreports

I can't wait to see your links.

OH GOODIE! Links!

Now what?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Then why didn't she stay governor until, say, 2011 or so (assuming she'd like to run for president)?
You still view all of this through party-colored glasses instead of just analyzing the strategic value of her move.

I've analyzed the move not only from a party-perspective (as that would only make sense in light of her recent supportive efforts to Republican candidates as members of her political party), but from a strategic perspective as well. Obviously, you have absolutely nothing to refute my claims as I have already addressed precisely what it is you claim I haven't. Try reading the friggin' posts you're responding to.

It doesn't really matter what she does or doesn't stand for and you're just trying to avoid admitting it wasn't an `ideal move' on her part to quit now. And without saying why.

I've already stated why traditionally this would be a bad move, but that her approach may have turned out to be untraditional... and effective. It is entirely contingent upon the success or failure of her efforts in drumming up support for Republican candidates in 2010. She's already said quite clearly that she's going to be working for those trying to get into office. How much clearer do you need to be? I mean, I know it's awful rare for politicians to hold off on announcing their candidacy for President.

Do you have any clue at all how this works Oreo or are you just too mired in partisan talking points to make any sense of it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I actually am a Republican and I'd never vote for this woman.

Well then you probably wouldn't be shocked to know that many people do not blindly vote down the party line. I also, would likely not vote for Palin. Of course, if I'm given a choice between a Marxist or a moron, I'll pick the moron any day of the week. Even when the moron has a (D) after their name.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

She ran for a job that she wanted. She won. She quit. There's no other way to disguise it. She should have known what she was in for. She quit. She's a quitter, and now she has people defending that. Tragic.

Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I would have preferred she finish her term, all the while costing the State of Alaska, and it's citizens, time and money fighting frivolous ethics charges (Alinsky Rules #4) and unable to be an effective Governor.

Would you call Barry Goldwater a quitter? He resigned from his Senate seat to run for POTUS, as did Bob Dole, both lost. Dole would be a bigger quitter because, unlike Goldwater, did not run for Senate again (and won). Obama was ROAD, but that is OK because he won. Mrs. Palin has announced her "higher goal" as

to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and “energy independence.”

and that will bring her attacks from her opponents that make what came before look like a Sunday picnic.


BTW, What exactly does Rham Emanuel do?

Now I remember

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is not going well for you is it?
washingtontimes
gallup

I'm great thanks for asking, were about to pass Healthcare care reform with a public option, the Stimulus is working and the Cap and Trade bill is about to pass the Senate. Things are looking up for the first time in the last 8 years.

I will admit ebuddy, you got me, your poll says what you said. Sorry.

My question is did you even read your own poll you linked? I doubt it. If you did you would see that included in your 40% number..........is wait for it............Democrats and Independants.

Like I said you got me, 40% of those who were polled said they were Conservative. It was my own error in context, as I confused Conservative as meaning Republican that's what I was calling BS on.

My only guess is that you think Conservative=Republican, but it doesn't otherwise you wouldn't have linked the poll.

Here's what else your linked poll says. It's not good for the GOP, but you already knew that because you read it right?

Quoted by Gallop
Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.

Lets see, 36% of Americans are Democratic, 28% are Republican. When the independents are pressed to choose a side the numbers become 51% Democrats to 39% Republican.

How are those numbers good for the GOP again? Can't win elections when all you have is 39% of the vote. Or does 39% over 51% in the Republican world?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, this is really very simple kobi. The GOP did not govern conservatively. The elections in 2006 and the Presidential election of 2008 was a referendum on Republicans, not a mandate for Democrats or liberalism. With each new move made by this administration, more approval is lost. Obama's personal numbers remain high while each and every policy he's enacted declines. This will drag his personal approval rating down with it.

Your trolling skills are getting better I must say.

Where are these bad approval numbers for his policies? Here's some polls for you to learn from:

Approval rates for two Obama's "Administrative moves"

Obama's approval rating 58%

Stimulus Package 67% approval

Heathcare Reform 63% Approval That's with 6 out of 10 saying the government should guarantee health care

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There will always be a Republican Party and as soon as they decide to govern from their platform as opposed to abandoning it for political expediency, they will return to the majority. Let's face it, liberal policy and the standard Democratic party platform is not popular enough to win nationally. That's why Obama had to run on fiscal responsibility, tax cuts, and Jesus of Nazareth. The great moderate pragmatist to transcend the party divide through transparency and bipartisanship has governed in a way that is anything, but transparent and bipartisan. His pragmatism has come only after the second or third attempts at a decision from watching polling numbers.

I'm sure supporters of the Whig party said the same thing.

If the Democratic platform isn't strong enough to win nationally, how do you explain the polls I've linked or the approval ratings for President Obama's policies? Why isn't the Republican's running the show? Because they lost nationally across the board to guess what.......a democratic liberal platform.

Your correct Obama ran on fiscal responsibility and tax cuts and he's done it. As soon as the Bush tax cuts expire, the middle class will get a tax cut and the upper tax brackets will see a tax increase.......how is that different than his campaign promises?

You can blame it on the GOP not governing conservatively or what ever lie gets you through the day, but that's not what happened.

What happened was the last GOP president like the ones before him (Reagan and Bush Sr.) sold this country to the highest bidder, for their own economic gain. They all left this country in shambles economically with recessions for each Republican president since 1980. The Republicans not wanting to change a thing, put up the same type of Republican as all the rest, and the voters didn't buy his or the party's lies; So he lost. Simple really.

You can't run on a platform of "Country First" when all your party has ever represented has been "Corporations First" and expect to win. Voters are dumb, but not that dumb. Well I take that back McCain did get votes so they are that dumb.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well... you've got a couple problems here kobi. Strictly numerically speaking, the Republicans will gain seats, the question is how many. As long as the US is in a recession, Obama's numbers will continue to decline. As long as the Democrats remain in the majority through this stagnant economy, there will be no one to remove, but Democrats. The ol' "It's Bush's fault" mentality is losing its credibility kobi. Trust me.

Ahem......i suggest you look at polling for the 2010 Senate Races before you speak.
There's open Republican seats in these states:
Kansas
Florida
Texas
Ohio
New Hampshire
Missouri
and possibly a open seat in Oklahoma with Tom Coburn being involved in the John Ensign mistress payoff scandal.

All I see there is seven more seats for the Democrats.

How can the truth lose creditability? Bush destroyed not only this country but another sovereign nation called Iraq; That's the truth, those are facts. I'm sorry that the truth hurts about Bush ruining the economy, but as the Stimulus works Obama's numbers will do nothing but increase. Placing blame on Bush where it belongs will never tire, as Bush will be known as the President who almost caused another Depression, and invaded a sovereign nation for personal gain. Trust me after the Obama administration prosecutes Bush officals, for torture the Republican party's implosion will make the Whig party's implosion look like a tea party.

It's going to a long eight years for you.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I would have preferred she finish her term, all the while costing the State of Alaska, and it's citizens, time and money fighting frivolous ethics charges (Alinsky Rules #4) and unable to be an effective Governor.

Damned if she does.

Actually by her quitting, she's costing the citizens of Alaska over $200,000. Special session and all to appoint a new Lt. Governor.

Still quoting Alinsky I see, read The Prince yet?