LF: Sarah Palin: Is The Bloom Off Her Rose?

Tea party-backed candidates for the US Senate are offering tepid comments on Sarah Palin's qualifications for high office. Other Republican candidates decline to join her at GOP fundraiser.

Did we miss something, or is the bloom a bit off Sarah Palin’s rose?

Two prominent tea party-backed candidates for the US Senate are offering tepid comments on her qualifications for high office. Other major GOP candidates find they have “scheduling conflicts” preventing them from attending a Republican National Committee fundraiser where Palin will be a major attraction.

She continues to toy with the possibility of a presidential run in 2012, comparing herself to Ronald Reagan – another celebrity who won the White House. Yet most Americans think she’s not qualified for the job.

IN PICTURES: Who's who? Christine O'Donnell & Sarah Palin

A CBS News poll this past week shows her favorable/unfavorable ratings at a dismal 22-48 percent. In California, according to a new Field Poll, her figures are even worse with a 58 percent unfavorability rating. Tellingly, 53 percent of those surveyed by Field said they’d be less inclined to vote for a candidate endorsed by Palin. Among nonpartisan voters, that number rose to 66 percent.

That’s no doubt why Carly Fiorina (attempting to unseat Barbara Boxer from the US Senate) and Meg Whitman (running against Jerry Brown for California governor) have declined to appear with Palin just two weeks before the election. “Scheduling conflicts,” don’t you know.

That CBS News poll also has 64 percent of those surveyed agreeing that Palin is not qualified to be president – including a plurality of Republicans. Even 39 percent of those who describe themselves as tea party supporters say Palin does not have “the ability to be an effective president.”

Nobody reads polls closer than candidates, and tea party-backed contestants for high office who had Palin’s endorsement are no different. That includes Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, both of whom waffled mightily when asked if Palin has what it takes to be president.

The most Miller could offer is that Palin is “qualified” in the sense that she’s old enough and a citizen born in the United States, prompting a hurt feelings e-mail from Todd Palin. O’Donnell refused to answer a “hypothetical question.”

Meanwhile, Palin herself remains coy on the subject.

“Speaking to a group of well-connected Republicans at a private dinner in Florida this week, Sarah Palin implicitly addressed questions about her own electability by noting that critics also said Ronald Reagan couldn’t win in 1980,” reports Politico.com, which talked with three people who attended the private dinner.

“Trying to divine her intentions – does she just want to stay in the presidential mix to build her brand, or is she actually running? – is difficult,” writes Politico’s Jonathan Martin. “But the mere act of meeting with the sort of Republican donors, strategists and activists who fund and advise presidential campaigns is telling.”

“I think she sees herself as heir to Reagan,” one attendee at that high-powered dinner told Martin.

There are parallels. Both Reagan and Palin were governors. Both were major celebrities. Both butted heads with their party’s establishment.

But the details are far different.

Reagan was a celebrity before he became president, then governed one of the largest and most complex states for a full two terms. Palin was governor of a state with a population far smaller than Fresno, then dropped out after two years, becoming a professional celebrity only after she and John McCain lost their run for the White House.

But she’s got a good – and very lucrative – gig going, and she certainly continues to play a major role in electoral politics. That should last through 2012, whether Barack Obama is reelected or some other Republican burning with presidential ambition beats him.

mininggold could come back. But she would have to apologize first and stop behaving like she does and stick to the issues.

I'd-like-to-see-a-bullet-hole-in-his-head-fred is OK with personal data being posted on line.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.

"Look cunt. Next time you diss me your gone. Asswipe was posting images of one of our posters. "

Imagine someone rejecting a well thought out comment like that? That girl just ain't right in the head.

They will post about Stone for a few weeks, get bored, start attacking the next host and move on , yet again.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.

Stone watches and punishes those who diss Mr and Mrs Badeye and calls it being 'fair". lolol

That wasn't what that poster originally posted, stupid. Stone changed it even though he vehemently denies changing other's posts. Uh Oh, I bet I get charged with smearing him with lies again.

Stone watches and punishes those who diss Mr and Mrs Badeye and calls it being 'fair". lolol

Look cunt. Next time you diss me your gone. Asswipe was posting images of one of our posters.

Not on that particular reply. Anyway it and your sweet comment are saved to be sent to the local tea party campaign to tell them why they need to clean up their ranks..

It is called moderating. I took out the pic that the dumbass put in of one of our posters. And it is clear that I wrote that by what it says. Unless you are a retard.

Are you so stupid to say that I can't take out someones post and let them know they are banned?

If that is what you are trying to say I do tell me now so I can delete you too. I'm not going to allow smears.

Perhaps you could make a final post to them, instead of changing their own words. Even deleting the post would be a better choice.

That is a fair enough criticism. To me it is obvious. But for the slow people I will consider making it even more clear in the future.

# Å8; # Stay in Afghanistan? There's No Other Choice | Christianity Today ... Stay in Afghanistan? There's No Other Choice. We're already there. Now we have to deal with it. Jean Bethke Elshtain | posted 9/08/2010 09:28 ...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.

Let's see. Just the fact that they're on the edge of a movement/cargo cult that has decided to Ignore Completely the Trends that the Planet is displaying.

See Super Typhoon Megi and 18% more water flowing into the Oceans in the last 25 years.

"The 1930s coined the phrase “beggar thy neighbour”. Today, the financial potentates have gone one better. They are working on a “beggar thyself” policy."

History will show that the Days before the Deepwater Horizon were OMFGPalin's Last as a serious Contender for any public office.

Obama is paying the tea party to support a proposition to roll back California clean air regulations?

That's nearly exactly what Goldi told war on elPee. He was suspended until he apologized to packass for some trivial thing.

war was trying to make a point about Goldi's ridiculous declaration that it a poster was not obligated to support an allegation, since that would lead to "censorship".

war tested that theory out, and of course was immediately jumped on by Goldi who forgot all about her previous declaration about where the burden of proof fell.

Using Goldi logic, packrat should have been the one to apologize, since he couldn't prove war wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.

"I really wanna care. I wanna feel somethin'. Let me dig a little deeper:. No, My give-a-damn's busted"~ Messina Jo Dee

Your language doesn't reflect well on you, the people who raised you, or the community you grew up in.

Pointing out Christians that are hypocrites has really struck a chord eh Murron.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

"The 1930s coined the phrase “beggar thy neighbour”. Today, the financial potentates have gone one better. They are working on a “beggar thyself” policy."

" The problem was nailed in a class action lawsuit recently filed in Kentucky, titled Foster v. MERS, GMAC, et al. (USDC, Western District of Kentucky). The suit claims that MERS and the banks violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law originally passed to pursue organized crime. Bloomberg quotes Heather Boone McKeever, a Lexington, Ky.-based lawyer for the homeowners, who said in a phone interview, “RICO comes in because the fraud didn’t just happen piecemeal. This is organized crime by people in suits, but it is still organized crime. They created a very thorough plan.”

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

"Miller’s belief that he can hire a goon squad to falsely arrest people who disagree with him is, sadly, part of a much larger pattern. “This behavior is particularly disturbing, especially for someone who claims to be a ‘constitutional conservative,’” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who is waging a write-in campaign against Miller, said.

Miller — aka “Mr. Noun, Verb and Unconstitutional” — is best known for decreeing that laws he disagrees with must be unconstitutional. Miller has previously claimed that the federal minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and even federal child labor laws violate the Constitution — although his opposition to these programs hasn’t prevented him from tapping into them whenever his family qualified for benefits.

In other words, Miller really only follows one rule: “whatever Joe Miller wants; that’s the rule.”

What does today’s politics call it when the elites seek to further cut their own costs and rob the people by further cutting the amount of the people’s wealth which is spent on the people’s well-being? They call it “austerity”