Who is firing up the Republican base? It's none other than the "mama grizzly" herself. Sarah Palin is back out on the campaign trail. But who is she campaigning for? She still has yet to endorse any of the GOP candidates.
Palin gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Committee Saturday. Her speech was met with screams and applause reassuring everyone that she hasn't lost her mojo even though she's been out of the spotlight a bit lately.
Her speech encouraged the ongoing fight for a GOP presidential nominee. Now, why would Palin want to keep this thing going? She wants to throw her name in and run herself? Is she the one that is going to unify the Republican party? Does she really think she can campaign against Obama and win? The air must be really thin up there in Alaska. It will make for good late night television if she does decide to run, that's for sure.
Her speech was not without protest. Not surprising because when it comes to Sarah Palin, there's not much middle ground—either you hate her or you love her. A protester yelled, "Get the hell out of here, you asshole!" and was removed. To which Palin responded to the crowd, "See, you just won." And to celebrate, they all grabbed their loaded guns and went hunting.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 81 ( 19 removed by Lora Covrett )
No amount of wishful thinking, hoping nor praying will ever get Sarah Palin to run for another political office. {as you know} Inasmuch, as she is well aware that she would loose any such campaign in a landslide and being Sarah, she could not stand the personal humiliation.
Further, Sarah being the egotistical self adoring individual which she most certainly is, must from time to time interject herself into the public's eye, expressly for the self gratification she affords herself in believing that she is, in her mind, relevant, wanted and needed by those she assumes still adore her. With Sarah, it's her lifes blood and what sustains her mental wellbeing.
BTW: Lora, great duet picture !!!
All of your friends should be proud.
Liberals would love nothing more than to have Palin run for (and win) the Republican nomination. It would ensure Obama's re-election and provide plenty of great Saturday Nights watching Tina Fey lampoon her. Liberals might occasionally feel guilty about feeling a guilty physical attraction to the otherwise vacuous and repulsive pseudo-politician, but Fey gives us an even better looking parody we don't have to regret jonesing for.
Well Political science expert Chuckles and Chris,
It's NOT Sarah Palin that is a threat but what she represents, the ideals of conservatism.
Sarah and Michell are loved by thousands and that is a reminder to you progressives that there are a whole lot of people in our country who don't subscribe to your ideology.
how very non-judgemental, non-elitist, and non-arrogant of you!
your compassion, and embracement, and thoughtfullness directed at ideals opposed to your own, is simply overwhelming!
it is no wonder you appear to be a part of the 'lets all just get along' mentality!
or
when it comes to neurological engagment, you are two numerals shy of a binary system!
They to try and demean Conservatives to make themselves feel superior.
It doesn't work and it doesn't matter, these progressives here on Gather who engage in such attempts like R.F., Chuckles, Rory and Lora to name a few are the extreme of even the small 20% minority of liberals in our society, they are the ones who give liberals a bad name.
Now that you have made your extreme minority progressive selves feel better by bashing conservatives.
You'll have to explain not understanding scientific method and not believing in science as you keep denying the science and research that shows human caused global warming is unlikely?
That (the continuing saga of conservatives latching onto every statement that opposes that vast majority as though it were the final word in scientific research on the matter) and the attitude of fundamentalist Christians (conservatives to the last man and woman) to the science of evolution are the explanation for attributing to conservatives a lack of understanding of the scientific method and willful disbelief in science.
On both those topics (climate change and evolution) conservatives frequently refer to the scientific theories as belief systems or religions. They seem to be, in large part, unable to identify a view of the world that is not religious in nature.
Really? You'll have to give us examples of;
"the media has given a lot of ink/air time to scientific opinions that cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change,"
Because frankly you don't know what you are talking about, the Lame Stream media is still enamored with the global warmists and doing what ever they can to support the theory of man caused global warming.
Maybe you can let us know of these sources that are given so much;
"ink/air time to scientific opinions that cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change,"
Rather than you postulating as to the belief structure of conservatives maybe you could point us to the science that the "consensus" uses to validate their belief in man caused global warming?
Lets look at it this way Rory;
According to the IPCC in their 2007 report human out put of C02 is 90-95% responsible for global warming...Yet since 1998 we humans have continued to increase our C02 out put every year year after year....And the planet has NOT warmed.
Yes Rory, in order for you to continue to believe in the theory of man caused global warming it takes a whole lot of....FAITH!
Yup and Obama got nearly 70 MILLION votes... so keep on running with your thousands hahaha
think of the effort it took for THEM to show up!!!!!!!
obama, or any president should be at least as smart, or snarter than the rest of us.
as has been proven repeatedly the last few decades, it doesnt always happen.
and obama is not smarter, he is better trained (educated) and has more prestigious degrees than most - but lakcs totally as far as intelligence.
if i am wrong - please expalin how one can save 3 thousand percent on an expense, as he told seiu members he had just done for their employers.
if antone thinks that is possible - then they have zero intelligence on basic middle school math, and without that, how on earth can they understand complex economic issues, and sophiosticated accounting facts involved in the national budget?
i guess they would also think, that wanting t raise the budget by 3 or 4 T, then lowering that by 1T will 'sdave the country money', and lower the deficit!
oh wait - he has done that sort of thing too.
when will some of you figure out, that having big degrees, might only mean a talent to memorize - not a display of intellignce.
my cocker spaniel has been trained to count - so is he smart at math?
Also, as the republicans gave us George W. Bush jr, they really have NO right in questioning ANYONE's intelligence...
The dead voting democrat!? That's not even a right-wing conspiracy, that's a Simpsons episode....
College does teach people things than the rest of the barely high school educated or high school dropouts don't know. Many things.
But it also means you have the desire and ability to complete something not required of you.
Obama's strong suite is probably not math or economics. He has many other strong suites though. He has us on the right track. When you're thrown in a hole two miles underground it's going to take a while to see daylight again, that's all.
I know I put Bachmann's face next to Palin -- cuz it was a funny picture, in my opinion. But, I think Bachmann should be secretary of the treasury. She is quite bright.
I disagree with every other single thing she says -- but she does know numbers.
and as i said - the last several decades ........... which includes bush - no disagreement in my mind.
so after you spell check ............... answer the question - if you can - saying '3000% saviings' is not a typo, it is not a simple mistake, it is a moronic comment.1
and yes dead people vote all the time for both parties. just because an idioptic cartoon makes fum of iut, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
see that is part of the problem with nimrods - they always want to prove they are right, by saying the other one iswrong - what i am saying, is bush and obama are both idiots - as well as several others that have been potus.
so get off your partisan high horse, and tell me - how is that comment true?
better yet - tell me one smart thing obama has said, that he was not trained to say!
was it - 'dont know how to say that in austrian'? or only ONE state to campaign in. alaska and hawaii? was it how as commander in chief he repeatedly mis-pronounced corpsman? or whan he referenced hawaii as being in asia? or the 'country of europe'? or how he did not know there is a differerent dvd version for england and europe? or maybe the 'state of eau claire'?
come on - give me facts - what brilliant thing did he say - that unemployment went down whgen it was really only the number of people that GET unemployment went down since benefits ran out? or maybe how he presented a budget that cut spending, but acually onlly reduced the proposed increase?
but hay yaknow - thoise spelling errors .. wow ....... not THAT is important
did your synapses suffer a power surge?
College does teach people things than the rest of the barely high school educated or high school dropouts don't know. Many things.
But it also means you have the desire and ability to complete something not required of you.
in general i would agree with that -but havce also met a large number of people, that could memorize, and take testsw well that got numerous advanced degrees, but had zero comprehension,iunderstanding, and intelligence based on that.
my ex has an mba - and re-paid a credit balance on a credit card 4 moinths in a row - not knowing that little minus sign there had a meaning.
you simply can not confuse intelliegnce with sheepskins - they are not mutually inclusive.
I helped a friend with their math homework -- an online class -- they gave me their password and I logged in and completed about 10 math assignments. Some of them she had tried to answer and even if I got it wrong, I still got a THIRD try to get it right.
I'm not sure if she still got full credit for these THIRD attempts but I think it's ridiculous.
When I went to school -- high school and college -- I got ONE chance to answer a question on a test or homework. Not THREE!
Students are LAZY and there's a reason why the PhD's graduating from our universities have foreign names -- it's because they know how to work and study and Americans do not....or WILL not.
I am pleased you accept my apology.
But, I shall still vehement disagree with you on most political issuse. ;)
it is worse now than then - but my wife and i both got our degrees a LOT more than 15 years ago - and even then i knew many of the profs i had with phd's, and jd's (in the 60's and 70's) could regurgitate anything they had been taught - but were still complete idiots at any rational. logical thought - problem solving was nil - unless they had memorized the formulas - like with history - knew where, when and who was in every signel skirmish - but ask them why the wars happened??? no clue.
you notice it now more because you have been a decade or more out of school - but even 40 years ago when i was there .......... excepot our phd idiots had names that were easier for me to pronounce (they had not bought so many vowels maybe? lol - coundlnt resist).
and with that dear friends and opponents, and any copmbinatiopn thereof - i muyst depaert till tomorrwo - my hands are klilling me.
But, I shall still vehement disagree with you on most political issuse
as is reasonabke - and no real apologt needed - just the acknowledgment you as;ready hve givn here.
again lora, i do appreciate the acknowlegement, and want to assure you i hold absolutely no grudges.
i am a firm believer that we MUST discuss politics and religion. to not do so, locks us all in our own little world, with no way for us to challenge our own thoughts, or be even firm in our own convictions.
yes it will get heated, yes at times we may go overboard - but we have to remember we are debating the merits of the argument - not the individual.
btw in case you wonder - my pinkies are the worst, which is why i avoid caps and 'returns' , and going back to fix errors after i look up from the keyboard to the screen - right now, i am coming off of 11 hours sleep, and morning (ok early afternoon) azsnd meds kicking in.
anyway - back to the subject.
there is a tendancy in us all, to see authority figures, and judge on level of intelligence, on degrees, or what is called 'refined' actions. but as i said, they are not mutually inclusive, nor are they mutualy exclusive.
a jd is a perfect example, of where there is no correlation. studying law is a matter of a great memory - what you were told, which law case in history relates to a subject, including who, when, where and case number.
the why has nothing to do with any of it. that is why so many good lawyers make lousy judges, and good judges are not always the best lawyers.
obama and palin i think are excellent examples - palin is not at all stupid - too many things were looked for to attack her intellectle.g. see russia from my back yard.
actually she did not say that at all. whats-her-name on snl said it.
palin referenced that russia was paractically in her back yard, as govenor of alaska. and that is true. on clear days, there are places (mountains) on the allucian islands, where you CAN see russian territory (@200 miles).
anything she said, was taken as a sign of stupidity, yet everything obama said, that demonstrates stupidity, is ignored as a 'slip of the tongue'.
i have experienced the preconceived perspectives people draw in my own life. in my carreer, wearing a $2000 suit, crisp white shirts, and silk ties, i was seen, and treated, much differently, than on week ends, in old lee jeans, unshaven, and cheap tennies and t-shirt. sometimes by the same exact people, who didnt make the connection, that it was me.
sarah talks common - she uses cutesy little expressions. to do otherwise, she would be seen as eltitist, snobbish, and arrogant where she lives!
i knew many many people that had advanced degrees from london school of economics - and they all had a tendancy to flaunt it - yet me, with my little degree from a university no one heard of, was selcted for a special finance masters program at rutgers - they were NOT amused lol.
in obama, i see that same arrogance, and the presumption of intelligence, that is comepletly contradicted in things he says "off script", and his choices in things.
It's not just what I read in the media about her. I like to go to the source to get my information. I watched her Alaska show when it was on (I don't remember what it was callled), I've watched every state of the union, every GOP debate. I, personally, draw my own perception of the individual through watching them interact with other people, listening to the words they choose, etc.
I knew I wanted Santorum gone during the first debate when he hardly spoke. I knew nothing of his agenda yet. And when I learned it, I said, "I knew I didn't like that guy."
The ONLY time Sarah looked "good" was next to Kate Goslin when she and her kids went camping with the Palins. She looked smarter, more reasonable and less bitchy -- but that's not hard to do next to Kate.
If Palin is smarter than she appears with her "cutesy little expressions", should could demonstrate it in another way. What you perceive as "cutesy", I perceive as snotty. Her "lipstick on a pig" comment was snotty.
She couldn't answer a question about what newspapers she reads. She could have said she goes to different media outlets online, she could have said something. Talk about not know what to say when you go "off script!"
you are dead right that is does come to a matter of perception many times.
ya see - the lipstick on a pig comment was something i heard all my life - it went along with not judging a book by its cover - was meant to be snotty, but that outside appearances are not always accurate. an 'old saying' in some parts of the country.
yet i can also see how some could percieve it as a snotty comment.
i think the question about what she reads - caught her off guard - and yes her answer to it was indeed a stupid answer.
but that still does not prove that obama is so smart, and that all of his stupid comments (that i listed only some of above) are all just 'mis-spoke', 'slip-of -the-tongue', 'caught-off-guard', etc.
it is a goose/gander thing.
now - all that said, i would not want her to be president, or vice.
but to attack her on intellect is simply not fair.
for whatever reason, in my make-up, i want to ignore/disqualify people based on truth, not mis-conceptions.
e.g. clinton, obama and both bush's are blamed for thing s that were not their fault - there are plenty opf things to blame them for that are not subject to perspective,m personal;ity or politics - we dont need to create more than those ............ i was never impressed with any of them - but none of my reasons are the ones the media keyed in on.
the 4th estate seems to be stone cold dead, replaced by mimics. mimes, and comedians.
did you bother to read any of my coimments here?
or did you just jump in to confront me ..........
here - since you seem unable to look or research, i will do your job too (just send me some of your points/paycheck). these are just a few that i mention above:
'dont know how to say that in austrian'? or only ONE state to campaign in. alaska and hawaii? was it how as commander in chief he repeatedly mis-pronounced corpsman? or whan he referenced hawaii as being in asia? or the 'country of europe'? or how he did not know there is a differerent dvd version for england and europe? or maybe the 'state of eau claire'? save 3 thousand percent on an expense. unemployment went down when it was really only the number of people that GET unemployment went down since benefits ran out? or maybe how he presented a budget that cut spending, but acually onlly reduced the proposed increase?
and those were just the ones off the top of my head as i was typing them (above).
any other work/effort i can provide for you?
oh - and to save myseldf from having to respond again to an assinine question - i also above said that the bushes and clinton were no better, and that i would not want palin as a potus or vp.
i just want the attacts to be true - they all have done enough stupid stuff on their own, without making crap up.
is your pounder really 12 ounces short as it appears to be from this question?
It's okay, I have fallen in that trap before myself.
If only she would change her mind and run. Dems need open enmity between Republican moderates and the Tea Party. This simmering is okay, but open warfare would be better.
Only if Obama's lunch consisted of boiled moose... only if...
Doesn't make sense...
Boiled moose does.
Did someone just say this~really???
An example from history is Abraham Lincoln, who was nobody's favorite for the nomination in the 1860 convention.
why would you use a derogatory sexual slang term for homosexual men, and imply anyone would prefer said insult?
not particularly tolerant i fear!
Del,
Because they try to demean anything that stands against their agenda!
It is the hateful left who foisted this term upon these patriots no matter what vocabulary expert Chuckles claims.
I think TEA was taxed enough already … baggers was added as an insult by the loud mouths of the left … who are hardly anywhere near as loud as the loudmouths of the right .. and also do not carry guns around outside to intimidate people. I don't think the T-bad term should be used, particularly for no reason other than to just provoke people, there is enough of that already. It is not just the TEA party part of the Republicans that is intractable and unwilling to compromise, that is what they stand for, but most of them do not even know why or how much they are taxed or what the hell they are talking about, they just have been riled up for years by right-wing-media and wound up to be mad as hell, by the same folks who are making them mad by ruining their lives and their childrens future.
>> mind" would vote for, and put into the presidency,
>> a Communist. And look what happened.
Hahah, LOL, … really, just be quiet and go back to sniffing glue.
Until her CPAC speech, I didn't necessarily want her as any candidate. But she and her crowd handled thier Occupier hecklers like none before her ever have - and they did win. It was impressive. Click here for the clip.
According to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
As far as the science issue, you say that it is the Right's "weapon", but then you say they won't say anything for fear of being laughed at. That statement contradicts itself and it is one of those baseless statements that you cannot prove (or can you?).
Generalizing an entire group of people is reminiscent of racism. Perhaps we should start engaging in intelligent debate about the issues instead of calling people "twits."
Claiming that the other side does what you do all of the time doesn't make it so.
Science stands or falls on its own merits.....Your problem is, is that the science you believe is falling down about your ears.
Hardly, she was not qualified to be President, so she was no qualified to be Vice-President, and so both Palin and McCain marginalized themselves with such a bad decision. After Palin showed herself to be almost completely illiterate the media and the comedians did get nasty, but the Democrats do not even have to do anything wrong to get slammed and attacked by FOX news and the right.
If you blame Alinsky for ridicule, then the right sure learned a lot from him, that's all they try to do anymore.
She was FAR more qualified than this fool.
But I will say that throwing Bachman and Palin in the same bag is unfair. I disagree with Bachman but she is a smart intelligent lady who despite all the attempts of the media to paint her like Palin has some integrity. Like I said, I'd never support her or vote for her, but she is not in the same class as Palin at all.
I agree that Bachmann is very intelligent but I disagree that she has integrity.
Marilyn is, unfortunately, correct. There is little to choose from...and nothing, from a Conservative perspective.
Then she's even more pathetic and deluded than I thought. Do you have a link to the statements Palin has made actually saying this, or are you just making this up, Marilyn?
Given Ann Coulter's big "Vote for Romney" speech at CPAC, I'd love to see Sarah (or you, Marilyn) tell Coulter to her face that she must be a secret Democrat posing as a Republican to "mess with" the primaries.
-----
Hey KID…
> the left is obsessed with Sarah Palin.
You missed the whole thing … the left is not obsessed with Palin, they are obsessed with how many on the right wing think she has some credibility, and why? I am obsessed with the blind obedience the right gets from its members … no matter what a right wing politiicians does it is OK, fine and dandy with the majority of right wingers. They can cheer on Hermann Cain and his affairs as long as he bashes the media, and they can give Newt a standing ovation for cheating on all his wives, but if there is even a hint of what is basically the same thing from a Democractic politician, they will turn around in the same breath and attack them for the same thing.
Right wingers do not even apparently want to live in a culture, a society, they seem like they think that are so strong and tough they prefer the jungle, at least for everyone else.