Take that Newt Gingrich. Two weeks ago, the former Speaker warned that more NY-23-style fights in the GOP family would re-elect President Obama and make Nancy Pelosi “Speaker for Life.” But on Rush Limbaugh today, Sarah Palin said these primary fights are the way to win over swing voters.
Mary Bruce was listening…
Speaking to Rush Limbaugh today, Sarah Palin supported the idea of a third, independent party, but said America wasn't quite ready for it. "Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don't think America is ready for that," McCain's former running mate explained. In the meantime, Palin said the key to getting independent votes "is to not hesitate duking it out within the party."
"This is what I appreciate about the Republican Party. We have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries," Palin said. "We're not like this herd mentality like a bunch of sheep -- with the fighting instincts of sheep, as Horowitz would say -- like some in the Democrat Party; where, heaven forbid, you take a stand and you oppose somebody within your own party because it's the right thing to do. I appreciate that in the Republican Party…. This is healthy debate, good competition that makes candidates work harder. It makes for a better product, if you will, at the end of the day. I appreciate that about our party."
In light of the recent Republican wins in New Jersey and Virginia, Palin said she doesn't think "the third party movement will be what's necessary to usher in some common-sense conservative ideals."
"Naturally independents are going to gravitate towards that Republican agenda and Republican platform because the planks in our platform are the strongest to build a healthy America," Palin explained. "We're all about cutting taxes and shrinking government and respecting the inherent rights of the individual and strengthening families and respecting life and equality. You have to shake your head and say, 'Who wouldn't embrace that? Who wouldn't want to come on over?' They don't have to necessarily be registered within the Republican Party in order to hook up with us and join us with that agenda standing on those planks."
The former Alaskan governor pointed to her husband Todd as an example of Americans who refuse to register in a party. "Todd's not a Republican and yet he's got more common sense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent," she told the conservative talk show host.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/palin-on-rush-lets-duke-it-out.h...
John Lewis
Nope, nothing fringy about Palin. Anyone worth their salt politically goes on Limbaugh's show.
1The Democrats slugged it out in the late 70s and 80s, when the far left & moderates were blaming each other for McGovern. I do hope the GOP refuses to learn from history.
2based on history, they probably won't
3
4
5I am a registered republican only so i can vote in a primary. I have voted democrat on several occasions. I think fiscal conservatism is not only a republican trait. i wish more politicians in general would pay closer attention to OUR money and making sure it is being used wisely. I know that if my daugther wants me to buy her something from her allowance, I am going to try to get the best deal possible for her because I would love to bring her home some change. I wish politicians had that view instead of spending just to spend
6Oh and spending our money so they can get a pet project or some benefit for them or their state.
7"A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation released on Tuesday afternoon asked respondents whether they would rather see their political parties nominate candidates who "don't agree with you on some major issues but have a good chance" of winning or candidates who "agree with you on all major issues but have a poor chance of beating" the opposition.
The results were fairly telling and counter-intuitive: Republicans, despite being in the minority, are more interested in philosophical consistency than power. Democrats, who run both chambers of Congress, prefer holding on to power.
Democrats:
58% Prefer candidates who can beat the other party
38% Prefer candidates who agree with you on issues
Republicans:
43% Prefer candidates who can beat the other party
51% Prefer candidates who agree with you on issues"
8So you are saying that you would rather vote on charisma than values, nice, that is so telling. Selling yourself out, fabulous, this explains SO MUCH
9"Agreeing on issues" has nothing at all to do with charisma; if people agree on issues, they very likely have similar values.
10But whatever...
No you said it's a good thing that people vote for someone who could win rather than someone who shares their values/view on issues. I think that is pretty sad that is what people do when voting, shameful really.
11win at all costs!
12Don't win and huddle together at your protests.
13Its better than selling my self and values for a win. Hopefully more people will see that you shouldn't sell yourself short and just vote for someone you think you can win, and start to fight to really get the right candidate who actually shares your values and points of view. But you can keep acting like those stats are a good thing. I think it shows how shallow some people can be and proves that Obama was elected on popularity and NOT on his policies as you seem to think
14Really?
15Is it a poll of people who voted last year?
Is it a poll of independents?
Does it break down what qualities made Obama the candidate who could win and measure them against popularity?
"Republicans, despite being in the minority, are more interested in philosophical consistency than power. Democrats, who run both chambers of Congress, prefer holding on to power. "
16Meaning dems are more likely to vote on who they think can win, primaries included. The only reason Obama got the nom was because dems thought he could win... it's pretty telling. You make the poll seem like it is all inclusive like it is gospel so I am commenting to you posting it. You don't like my response maybe you shouldnt post it.
I think it is telling that the dems will vote for whoever can win rather than on policies, to me that says vote for whoever is more charismatic since its not about policies and if you agree with them, why does it matter. What will everyone else vote, tow that line, group think. Sheds a WHOLE new light on democrats. Explains a lot of their views.
You think that poll is a good thing, i think is shows how dems will go along with popular opinion rather than have their own thoughts.
17I think it's a good thing because you guys are so divided between traditional republicans and tea bag types that I believe you're going to spend the next year tearing each other and your party apart, and we'll be able to go about our business. Dems going along with popular Dems opinion is okay with me right now. We'll have time to sort out the details.
18and AGAIN with the disgusting comments. Haus, can we ban that word please? I find it personally disgusting and a personal attack.
19lemmings..... dems are lemmings, it's cool. Follow the flow and who cares about your values.
20I dont know how that stat looks good?
Democrats:
58% Prefer candidates who can beat the other party
38% Prefer candidates who agree with you on issues
It says Democrats choose a candidate who can beat somebody, as opposed to what they believe?? That is something to be proud of???
Vote for what you actually believe in, not the cool kid on the block...
21In 2010, I hope that's just how it goes.
22well as long as you own up to just wanting to vote for the cool kid on the block
23My cool kid is our Nobel prize winning President, so I'm fine with my choices.
24joke
25I think the proper terminology for those in the Tea Party movement are tea partiers.
26No, that's the term they now want, not the term they started out with; it would be the 'politically correct' term. Nothing they do in public has to do with parties.
Tea Bagger as a person who protests Obama is now in some dictionaries.
27That's the term they've always called themselves, that's never changed. It is not new. And is a gathering not a party? Are meetings in homes not parties in a sense?
Most in the movement find the term tea bagger offensive, many people who comment here find that term offensive. As a moderator, I don't think it should be used.
It's clearly meant as an insult and meant to diminish their feelings. I think it says more about the person saying it than it does about the protestor.
28No revisist history please. They haven't always called themselves tea partiers, which is what led to the widespread discovery of the alternate meaning. And I said what they do in public - the protests and town hall disruptions that they are known for are not parties. Lord knows what they do when they meet in homes.
When you refer to anti-war protestors as traitors, cowards, communists and socialists is that meant to enhance their feelings of self-worth?
29Also, I referred here to tea bag types. The tea bag has been their symbol from the start.
30Yes I realize that you referred to them as tea bag types, then you went on to call them tea baggers.
And pointing to bad behavior doesn't justify bad behavior right? isn't that what you always say?
And I've never called them traitors or cowards. Nor have I called them communists or socialists unless it was based on statements they've said. If you can find something to support that tea partiers said they like balls in their face, then please pass it on and I will sit corrected. Until then I don't want to hear excuses as to why its ok to use that term.
I've never met a tea partier who called themselves a tea bagger. Contrary to what you might think, they are smart enough to know what that term ACTUALLY means. And it IS offensive.
You're smart enough to know its offensive. You just don't care because you don't mind offending those people. However if you read the statement above this comment box you'll see it clearly says "lewd images" are prohibited. So please act in accordance.
31More revisionist history Haus, you definitely have called anti-war protestors all those things and suggested they leave the country for not thinking as you do.
Who you've met and what they call themselves is relevant how?
32No, I think you're the one revising. I've never said anyone should leave the country for not thinking like me. I have said they should leave the country if they hate it so much and think there is someplace that better suits them. I mean, geez, that's just good advice. If you're unhappy, find something to make yourself happier.
If you're so convinced that tea party people don't mind being called tea baggers, then back it up. It should be pretty easy if it's as cut and dry as you suggest.
33Oh brother, own up, you know it is a disgusting word meant to insult and you cannot even own up to your own behavior instead of pointing fingers and saying what Haus did first. That kind of finger pointing is juvenile. It is what my 7 year old does when she doesnt want to get in trouble. I am surprised that any adult thinks that it is OK to say "You said mean things first"
34Yes there were SOME in the movement that called themselves by that term BEFORE they knew the sexual connotations. The fact that you insist to continue using the term shows your true character, your divisive nature, and lack of respect for anyone other than yourself.
I think "lewd images" actually refers to photos.
35true, but would you consider that term to be lewd imagery?
36I know I had lewd images in my head but that's not unusual.
37I mean arent we all adults here, to continue to use a word several people have expressed concern over shows your true character.
38The last time this came up, pictures were posted from these rallies with signs that read "tea bagging for jesus". Not tea partying for jesus, but tea bagging.
39wait, i'm confused. where did this discussion on "tea baggers" start?
40I think comment #18.
41gotcha
42"If you're so convinced that tea party people don't mind being called tea baggers, then back it up. It should be pretty easy if it's as cut and dry as you suggest."
http://conservative-sugar.tressugar.com/3055509 (see headline)
http://conservative-sugar.tressugar.com/3050684 (see paragraph # 6)
43"geez can no one read today"
"That's the term they've always called themselves, that's never changed" Haus, #28.
Tres Sugar just the other day had a post on an alternate meaning for 'having a beard' - should we all stop using the word 'beard'?
44OMG no where near the same, but keep deflecting.
45Let's try to stay respectful.
It's clear there are supporters of the movement who find that term offensive. I think it's pretty clear there are probably more of those people than ones who embrace that term.
Out of respect for other members in this group, can we please refrain from using that term?
46What term that others have objected to might you be willing to ask people to give up in return?
47you know what, just forget it then. if its really that hard for you to play nice then fine.
48At one point in time we referred to homosexuals as f@gs. We don't do that anymore because it is offensive. So even if a few of the tea partiers referred to themselves by the offensive term in the beginning, doesn't mean it is still correct to do it.
The correct term for the tea protesters is tea partiers. To continually use the other term is offensive.
49Fine. The correct term for health care reform is health care reform, not Obamacare. The correct term for Democrats is Democrats, not Obamabots, not socialists, not communists, not Marxists.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.