Sarah Palin at Iowa tea party rally.

[arnie666]

http://www.therightscoop.com/open-thread-sarah-palin-at-iowa-tea-party/

She I thought it very clever when she said if she was potus she would eliminate corporate income taxes but also eliminate corporate welfare.Which means no more big government interference with bailouts or tax breaks. It would be sink or swim for corporations, that puts them on more of a level playing field with everyone else.

Here is why it was clever in my opinion. Obama not too long ago expressed concerns to the public about paying welfare for the pensioners and military vets. Yet neither he or the other republican candidates are talking about something so radical, something so DEMOCRAT. She has managed to stay true to free market principles by saying she would eliminate corporate income tax but focus on the american peoples anger over what they feel about corporations getting a free ride.

She never mentioned specifically going after social security or medicaid because she realises the high unemployment levels and how hard people have it.That wouldn't be popular. This woman ,who is thought of as the fringe right could be seen as the saviour of medicaid and social security ,and paints obama as the one who cares less for the poor.She said she would protect the military benefits and the elderly. The left are criticising him for getting in bed with corporations. Even if she didn't think of it,she obviously has good political handlers and is listening to them.

This is why she is the one to watch ,and it will be very interesting if and when she enters the race. Because no one save ron paul (who will never get the nomination by the republicans as he had a chamberlain moment) is proposing such radical policies. She knows how pissed off the american people are not just with obama and the dems but all the establishment.

Indeed she also threw punches at the republican party and more interestingly I though the language she used might suggest a possible third party run. Now she may well if she does that, not having the huge resources of the republican party machine have no chance of becoming potus,but she will have the image of not being all talk. I really think she will run because if she doesn't her 'brand' will not be as popular ever. It is time to put up or shut up. If you truly think she is just all about the dollar (which I don't) ,then surely that makes sense?

[Stavros]

I dont think there is anything new in what Sarah Palin is saying, and the danger of having these debates so early in the cycle of Presidential elections, is that with little that is genuinely new to offer the voters, people will become weary of the same arguments being rehashed however the words change. The Republican candidates are making claims about employment that are tied to tax cuts, budget cuts, corporate favours, de-regulation and allegedly anything that a state or federal government 'imposes' on business. Rick Perry is being saluted for creating jobs in Texas by doing many of these things, even though a lot of the jobs are either minimum wage or below, or part time jobs; and even if he is luring corporations to Texas with lower taxes by first giving them tax holidays which cost the state before the businesses even move. Texas has a poor record for education, insurance cover, people living on charity and food hand-outs, and the state itself is still a major employer, and would lose thousands of jobs if Federal contracts were terminated: yet neither Texas nor the USA can compete with China for the labour-intensive jobs that are associated with mass employment of the kind that the USA enjoyed in the 1950s.

It is in the nature of the capitalist system that dominates the world, that the low cost/high reward basis of production determines where the jobs go: the USA, like the UK has to find other ways of employing people that will at least maintain a basic economy; but to starve education of funding is long-term suicide whether your name is Perry or Palin.

There is a distinct lack of imagination and hope in all of the publicity the candidates on all sides are offering; and rather too much prattle about God and Morals and how a new American government should interfere in the personal lives of individuals.

Jobs will be the deciding factor in your elections, as they remain a critical failing in the UK, Spain, and other European countries. Where they are going to come from, what they will be, and what they will pay, I do not know. If I did, I would be selling my wisdom to the highest bidder.

[Ben]

If she runs, well, she'll be the moderate of the group. And that isn't a joke. That's how far right the party has gotten. Remember... this was the party of Eisenhower -- and Lincoln.
Under Eisenhower top marginal tax rates were 91 percent. Is that too high? Well, we, as a democratic society, could and should debate that.
But the question is: how far right (when Palin is the moderate) does this party go. What will it be like it 2016? 2020? Will they continue to shift and veer more and more to the right?
We shouldn't forget the Dems. They've been shifting to the right since Carter. And Clinton, thank God!, brought us free trade, I mean, the free movement of capital, with China.... ha ha! ;)

Sarah Palin Keeps Iowa Audience Guessing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MNuiAHCTNc)

[hippifried]

Sarah Palin is never going to be anything more than she is right now, a professional celebrity.

[NaughtyJane]

I think it is weird how these varied personalities are just tanked on varied prescription drugs...their addictions protected by medical confidentiality.

No one i meet in my life, unless they are fucked up, has the ability to completely distort their thoughts by a complete inability to speak, and
communicate in clearly formulated sentences. Many of these political celebrities have clearly no idea what they are saying, at that second...
completely unaware. It reminds me of speaking to a beloved relation with alzheimers, completely crossing up all her thoughts and memories with no chronological context.
It is plain as day to me and no one brings it up.
Watch all these nuts through that lens for a while. Many are STONED.
I think it is like the drunken relative no one talks about.

In my office, I'd call them in have a little chat, rehab?
or the door? Oh wait all these people don't answer to management?
Sarah has that same 'look', and compensatory behavior, of people I have often, ahem, counseled.
Nothing to be ashamed of, she's just like Rush L.
Their bosses are the purposely dumbed down public. Cool racket.
Six figure junkies.

While I'm thinking about it, what if armies of trans women united to seduce and discredit republican politicians? Or at least enjoy the hush money.

[trish]

I'd love it if Sarah ran. Better yet, if she ran as a third party candidate. But it will never happen. She doesn't want to be the POTUS. I think she never did. What she wants is celebrity and the money that can bring. The problem is her celebrity seems to depend on her threat of running for POTUS. So she's playing that hand as long as she can. But the bimbo never finished anything in her life. She never finished her term as governor, never finished a book (reading one or writing one) without someone stepping in and taking over, she couldn't even go through with a bus tour. If it weren't for mother nature and religious ignorance I'm sure she never would've brought a pregnancy to term. Right now she's got the job of her life. A celebrity, fox-news-bimbo-airhead. She's making money for no work at all. The campaign trail is two years of 18 hour[] days, 7 days a week pressing flesh and giving interviews. She's not up to it. She knows she's not up to it. She not up to [] taking the hit in income, she's not up to the challenge intellectually, and she's not up to putting in all those hours. Hippie hit the nail right on the head: "she'll never be more than she is right now."

[NaughtyJane]

I'd love it if Sarah ran. Better yet, if she ran as a third party candidate. But it will never happen. She doesn't want to be the POTUS. I think she never did. What she wants is celebrity and the money that can bring. The problem is her celebrity seems to depend on her threat of running for POTUS. So she's playing that hand as long as she can. But the bimbo never finished anything in her life. She never finished her term as governor, never finished a book (reading one or writing one) without someone stepping in and taking over, she couldn't even go through with a bus tour. If it weren't for mother nature and religious ignorance I'm sure she never would've brought a pregnancy to term. Right now she's got the job of her life. A celebrity, fox-news-bimbo-airhead. She's making money for no work at all. The campaign trail is two years of 18 hours days, 7 days a week pressing flesh and giving interviews. She's not up to it. She knows she's not up to it. She not up to the taking the hit in income, she's not up to the challenge intellectually, and she's not up to putting in all those hours. Hippie hit the nail right on the head: "she'll never be more than she is right now."

Inconsistent drug addict behavior. Priceless.
Political celebrities have fallen into the same rut of 'Branding' as other celebrities. This is why Sarah trademarked herself.
She was a reasonably effective incomplete term governor because of the people working for her.
It had little to do with any brilliance on her part.
Few are effective at promoting cultural change, through courage of ardent individual thought.
Ideological sheep. Personality cult.... etc.

[onmyknees]

I'd love it if Sarah ran. Better yet, if she ran as a third party candidate. But it will never happen. She doesn't want to be the POTUS. I think she never did. What she wants is celebrity and the money that can bring. The problem is her celebrity seems to depend on her threat of running for POTUS. So she's playing that hand as long as she can. But the bimbo never finished anything in her life. She never finished her term as governor, never finished a book (reading one or writing one) without someone stepping in and taking over, she couldn't even go through with a bus tour. If it weren't for mother nature and religious ignorance I'm sure she never would've brought a pregnancy to term. Right now she's got the job of her life. A celebrity, fox-news-bimbo-airhead. She's making money for no work at all. The campaign trail is two years of 18 hour[] days, 7 days a week pressing flesh and giving interviews. She's not up to it. She knows she's not up to it. She not up to [] taking the hit in income, she's not up to the challenge intellectually, and she's not up to putting in all those hours. Hippie hit the nail right on the head: "she'll never be more than she is right now."


I'll tell ya what she DID finish Tish....she finished your little fucking majority in the House in 2012....didn't she? LMAO:dancing:

Which is the real reason you hate her, and anyone like her.
I'm amazed at the anger, pure hate and vitriol you libs have for her. Not once have I heard the same level of hate directed towards those who would , and have done us real harm...Islamic Terrorists. Curious bunch you progressives....curious and hypocritical, which is why you're in crash and burn hysteria mode, and it can't happen fast enough for me. lol

[trish]

There you go again, making unwarranted assumptions. Simply on the basis that I say she's stupid you assume I hate poor little ol' Sarah. Hey, I think you're stupid too, but I don't hate you. Show me where I ever said I hate Sarah. Come on now. Show us the link. I do pity her. And I pity you for losing your ass every time you post.

[arnie666]

I'd love it if Sarah ran. Better yet, if she ran as a third party candidate. But it will never happen. She doesn't want to be the POTUS. I think she never did. What she wants is celebrity and the money that can bring. The problem is her celebrity seems to depend on her threat of running for POTUS. So she's playing that hand as long as she can. But the bimbo never finished anything in her life. She never finished her term as governor, never finished a book (reading one or writing one) without someone stepping in and taking over, she couldn't even go through with a bus tour. If it weren't for mother nature and religious ignorance I'm sure she never would've brought a pregnancy to term. Right now she's got the job of her life. A celebrity, fox-news-bimbo-airhead. She's making money for no work at all. The campaign trail is two years of 18 hour[] days, 7 days a week pressing flesh and giving interviews. She's not up to it. She knows she's not up to it. She not up to [] taking the hit in income, she's not up to the challenge intellectually, and she's not up to putting in all those hours. Hippie hit the nail right on the head: "she'll never be more than she is right now."

Well I will hold you to that comment when she does declare she is running.The problem is, you are blinded by your own personal dislike for sarah palin,not just her politics but because she is a straight,white attractive woman who is not afraid to talk about her faith who is married and has a family .The left never like anyone like that,if she was a black lesbian who spouted left wing drivel you would be defending her to the hilt about all the criticism's you just made.

You do know she cut short her bus tour for jury service right? I could go into the other lies and misconceptions you have read on huffington post or MSGLBT but frankly it would be like talking to someone who has cloth in their ears. Refer to my last paragraph of my first post, lets just say you are right.It is all about money and that she has decieved people like me ,don't you think unless she runs her brand means shit? She makes money off her brand correct? Well there is only so much talking from the sidelines you can do and non campaign speeches and 5 point plans to fix the country you can make before you have to put up or shut up.

She will shortly become old and stale unless she makes some kind of move. Her income will dry up. Oh but she has that spot on fox, fox doesn't have loyalty to anyone if she doesn't keep herself relevant if she is seem as big timing it and all talk , their viewers won't be interested.

I happen to think you are wrong. I regard her as a very unconventional politician who has cleverly tapped into how the modern media works these days ,including social media and is using them to further her political ambitions. I think due to her politics and the fact she is a woman,both put her at a disadvantage with both parties, and the entire media and political establishment, so she is doing what she is doing to speak directly to the people. Because she can't rely on the republican party machine. She is not part of the golfing set.They don't like her. That is what for instance 'sarah palins alaska' was about. Thats what her very successful use of facebook is about as well. She is using fox,just as fox is using her.

[arnie666]

Inconsistent drug addict behavior. Priceless.
Political celebrities have fallen into the same rut of 'Branding' as other celebrities. This is why Sarah trademarked herself.
She was a reasonably effective incomplete term governor because of the people working for her.
It had little to do with any brilliance on her part.
Few are effective at promoting cultural change, through courage of ardent individual thought.
Ideological sheep. Personality cult.... etc.

Wow it is such an honor to have a member of the government of alaska during sarah palins tenure who has insider knowledge of what went on.On a transexual forum of all places. You must obviously have insider knowledge that the media who sifted all of sarah palins emails with a fine toothcombe looking for dirt could not find.

And that last part of what you wrote could be used to describe those who still support the failed vassal Barack Obama. It has got to the stage that those still supporting him have gone past the 'race card' and started to talk about people hanging from trees and encouraging public disorder. Nice,using the politics of fear to keep him in power .Keep Obama or we riot. . Barack Obamas plea for civility after that senator giffords had her brains all over the pavement after some insane leftist full of drugs shot her was obviously lost on them. But then we all know he doesn't hold his own side to the same standard.

Believe me if sarah palin isn't elected there won't be fires in the streets or people having their heads chopped off with machetes.

[arnie666]

I dont think there is anything new in what Sarah Palin is saying, and the danger of having these debates so early in the cycle of Presidential elections, is that with little that is genuinely new to offer the voters, people will become weary of the same arguments being rehashed however the words change. The Republican candidates are making claims about employment that are tied to tax cuts, budget cuts, corporate favours, de-regulation and allegedly anything that a state or federal government 'imposes' on business. Rick Perry is being saluted for creating jobs in Texas by doing many of these things, even though a lot of the jobs are either minimum wage or below, or part time jobs; and even if he is luring corporations to Texas with lower taxes by first giving them tax holidays which cost the state before the businesses even move. Texas has a poor record for education, insurance cover, people living on charity and food hand-outs, and the state itself is still a major employer, and would lose thousands of jobs if Federal contracts were terminated: yet neither Texas nor the USA can compete with China for the labour-intensive jobs that are associated with mass employment of the kind that the USA enjoyed in the 1950s.

It is in the nature of the capitalist system that dominates the world, that the low cost/high reward basis of production determines where the jobs go: the USA, like the UK has to find other ways of employing people that will at least maintain a basic economy; but to starve education of funding is long-term suicide whether your name is Perry or Palin.

There is a distinct lack of imagination and hope in all of the publicity the candidates on all sides are offering; and rather too much prattle about God and Morals and how a new American government should interfere in the personal lives of individuals.

Jobs will be the deciding factor in your elections, as they remain a critical failing in the UK, Spain, and other European countries. Where they are going to come from, what they will be, and what they will pay, I do not know. If I did, I would be selling my wisdom to the highest bidder.

I think it is very important that sarah palin talks substance during these speeches from now as a valid criticism of her is that she likes to fire off criticism's about Obamas performance and also about others in the republican race but rarely talks about what a palin administration would be like. Sitting on the sidelines won't cut it. She is one of the Obamas biggest critics who has got personal far more than the other candidates.

She might be able to keep some of her most diehard supporters but without key policies the independents and moderate republicans she needs to get elected won't vote for her. Obama may be almost certainly a one term president but sarah palin hasn't just got to win the republican nomination but win the general.

[russtafa]

she can always come and be our prime minister and we get rid of our foul skanky bitch of a prime minister

[Stavros]

I think it is very important that sarah palin talks substance during these speeches from now as a valid criticism of her is that she likes to fire off criticism's about Obamas performance and also about others in the republican race but rarely talks about what a palin administration would be like.

Part of the problem with the candidates that I have seen on video, is that none of them either have policy options which go beyond sound bites, or have the opportunity to go into the detail required. When you line up seven or eight candidates in front of a camera, and you have one or even two hours and try to cover seven or eight topics, it prevents them from going into detail: I would rather have a half hour on the deficit, or job creation, than give each candidate two minutes.

On the other hand, sometimes they like being cagey: the Tories used to claim they could not cost their alternative policies until they had been elected and could 'see the books' -ie calculate what was left in the national treasury to spend and so on.

Tax cuts, budget cuts, de-regulation: I would prefer to see departments named: as I understand it, there is a GOP phobia about the Environmental Protection Agency, even though Nixon introduced it -but I guess Ms Bachmann and Rick Perry consider Nixon to have been a socialist...

[trish]

she can always come and be our prime minister ...No she can't. She would start the trip half way around the world to Australia, and then she'd get distracted and give up somewhere around Hawaii.

[robertlouis]

she can always come and be our prime minister and we get rid of our foul skanky bitch of a prime minister

What makes you think she'd even be able to find Australia?

[onmyknees]

And you thought it was just Trish and a few others on here that were apoplectic and in absolute hysteria about Ms. Palin...Not so. Here's Tom Friedman, far left NY Times columnist and frequent talking head on the Sunday News Shows. A man that at least NBC News feels carries some weight... http://www.mrctv.org/videos/tom-friedman-all-interest-sarah-palin-sign-apocalypse

Now think about his statement for just a moment. He doesn't make this comment lightly, or on the Bill Maher show where one might think he's taking a stab at humor. He's dead serious. He feels we are on the eve of the Apocalypse solely because of the presence of Palin as a quasi political figure. Ya think this guy is slightly unhinged? I wonder then what he must think of the McKinley, Lincoln or Kennedy assassinations, or the any number of battles in the Civil War where brothers fought brothers and tens of thousands died...or how long that war dragged on...or the Invasion of Normandy, or 911 ? How do you put in context what he said juxtaposed against traumatic national events that to this day cause pain? This is what passes as the liberal intelligencia today. This is their level of discourse....their depth of thought. When they're not hysterical about Palin, they're telling the Tea Party to go to hell, or that they'd like to see black folks hung. These people are losing thier grip on reality. Avoid them at all cost...they're delusional!
This is what they've become...hysterical, unhinged dangerous doomsayers, and sadly Trish seems to be along for the ride.

[robertlouis]

And you thought it was just Trish and a few others on here that were apoplectic and in absolute hysteria about Ms. Palin...Not so. Here's Tom Friedman, far left NY Times columnist and frequent talking head on the Sunday News Shows. A man that at least NBC News feels carries some weight... http://www.mrctv.org/videos/tom-friedman-all-interest-sarah-palin-sign-apocalypse

Now think about his statement for just a moment. He doesn't make this comment lightly, or on the Bill Maher show where one might think he's taking a stab at humor. He's dead serious. He feels we are on the eve of the Apocalypse solely because of the presence of Palin as a quasi political figure. Ya think this guy is slightly unhinged? I wonder then what he must think of the McKinley, Lincoln or Kennedy assassinations, or the any number of battles in the Civil War where brothers fought brothers and tens of thousands died...or how long that war dragged on...or the Invasion of Normandy, or 911 ? How do you put in context what he said juxtaposed against traumatic national events that to this day cause pain? This is what passes as the liberal intelligencia today. This is their level of discourse....their depth of thought. When they're not hysterical about Palin, they're telling the Tea Party to go to hell, or that they'd like to see black folks hung. These people are losing thier grip on reality. Avoid them at all cost...they're delusional!
This is what they've become...hysterical, unhinged dangerous doomsayers, and sadly Trish seems to be along for the ride.

Well, omk, I've watched it three times, and other than the admittedly OTT statement about the apocalypse, I don't think there's anything controversial in the content - his two circles analysis seems right on target.

Oh, and I checked the provenance - MRC is a conservatively-funded body whose aim is to prove liberal bias in the media. So then I got a bit suspicious about the 60-second soundbite we saw - edited for effect?

And please don't tell me we don't get just as much overstated bombast from the right.

You're an intelligent guy, with an obvious agenda to pound, but you can do better than this.

[trish]

Wow. It's amazing what passes for apoplexy and hysteria in some minds. Call an ignoramus (who thinks, "What newspapers do you read?" is a trick question) a bimbo airhead and suddenly you're being apoplectic. Hysterical even. I can just see OMK's face glowing red, veins bulging, eyes nearly popping as he pounds away at his keyboard accusing me and others of apoplexy. No, I'm not laughing my ass off, but I am amused.

[hippifried]

Wow. It's amazing what passes for apoplexy and hysteria in some minds. Call an ignoramus (who thinks, "What newspapers do you read?" is a trick question) a bimbo airhead and suddenly you're being apoplectic. Hysterical even. I can just see OMK's face glowing red, veins bulging, eyes nearly popping as he pounds away at his keyboard accusing me and others of apoplexy. No, I'm not laughing my ass off, but I am amused.
Apoplexy??? I'll have to give that a bit more thought, when & if I ever get moving again.

Even Sarah Palin isn't stupid enough to think she has what it takes to be President of the United States. She's not running. This is what is called "milking the dog". Basically getting paid for doing absolutely nothing. She gets more tedious daily. If she ain't gonna git nekkid, she needs to get off my TV.

[NaughtyJane]

Wow it is such an honor to have a member of the government of alaska during sarah palins tenure who has insider knowledge of what went on.On a transexual forum of all places. You must obviously have insider knowledge that the media who sifted all of sarah palins emails with a fine toothcombe looking for dirt could not find.

And that last part of what you wrote could be used to describe those who still support the failed vassal Barack Obama. It has got to the stage that those still supporting him have gone past the 'race card' and started to talk about people hanging from trees and encouraging public disorder. Nice,using the politics of fear to keep him in power .Keep Obama or we riot. . Barack Obamas plea for civility after that senator giffords had her brains all over the pavement after some insane leftist full of drugs shot her was obviously lost on them. But then we all know he doesn't hold his own side to the same standard.

Believe me if sarah palin isn't elected there won't be fires in the streets or people having their heads chopped off with machetes.

That's cute. Feel better now?
I welcome civil disobedience, violence in the streets. 'bout time. Been a while. Miss it. Tear gas, concussion grenades, rubber bullets, riot police to throw things at... now that is a day on the town! Been there, done that.
One more time little one, her incomplete term was reasonably performed.
Obama Giffords... never mentioned those.
Far as I'm concerned a vote for sarah is a vote for fun.
Whatever. I think she is a prescription drug addict...
Big deal. Later dude.

[Stavros]

When I was involved in Labour Party politics in the UK, we used to have strategy meetings for canvassers where the key point was to make the key point: its either/or.

Either you vote for Labour, or its the end of the world is another way of putting it. In the mid-1970s Keith Joseph, the intellectual architect of Thatcherism, said The choice before the British people is to continue the decline with socialism, or begin the recovery with Conservatism. As simple as that.

You never hear a politician say, for example: Hmmm, well, we might be able to improve the economy, but we're not sure. No. What you get is: Our tax cuts/tax increases, will slow the decline and lay the basis for a recovery.

Voters must be given a clear choice, and there must be no doubts. But to take up onmyknees point, it helps if you can also sow a little fear into voters minds: If you vote Conservative, the health service will be at risk. Only the Labour Party can save the NHS! A vote for Labour is a surrender to the Russians!

In the US, more so perhaps than any other democracy (perhaps) the language of religion, the appeal to an imaginary apocalypse or 'socialism' is used in this way.

Then they get into office, and realise they might be able to raise taxes, cut taxes, create jobs. But they aren't really sure. But hey, they won the election, and there are contracts to be written up, shunted through Congress and signed....

Honesty about policy, be it in the US or the UK or France or Germany, would be a refreshing change from the absolutely certainty of someone who absolutely doesn't really know.

[hippifried]

In the mid-1970s Keith Joseph, the intellectual architect of Thatcherism, said The choice before the British people is to continue the decline with socialism, or begin the recovery with Conservatism. As simple as that.
Did it work? Decline over?
"Intellectual" huh? Back in the '70s, when the linguistic revisionists from all over the sphere were busy trying to get extremeism to be viewed as the center of the linear political discriptive (did that work?), "intellectual" became synonymous with "glib" &/0r "haughty". Anyone who actually has anything intelligent to say is shunted aside as some asshole to be avoided. Anyone can be an "intellectual". You just need college degrees & the ability to string words together in a way that people think they should know what you said. Being snide can help develop the illusion. I don't know who this guy is/was, but that quote sounds an awful lot like punditry. All punditry is lies. I see no brilliance peeking through the hysterical rhetoric.

It's not that the voters "don't have a clear choice". They have no choice at all. The only options given are extreme left or extreme right, & intellect is ignored. The descriprive doesn't work.


Honesty about policy, be it in the US or the UK or France or Germany, would be a refreshing change from the absolutely certainty of someone who absolutely doesn't really know.
I like this. I'm stealing it for plagieristic purposes.

[Stavros]

Hippifried:
1) it should be absolute certainty of someone not absolutely certainty, a typo. I normally charge a fee for people who want to hijack my wisdom, but in the spirit of intellectual freedom I will pass.

2) In the 1970s the Conservatives were in a similar position in the UK as they were in the US: disappointment with Nixon there, disappointment with Heath here. Edward Heath, who was Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974 entered office as a free market liberal -his government had claimed they would not save a business if it 'went under' -until Rolls Royce was about to 'go under' whereupon the government found money to save it. This was one of Heath's famous U-Turns. His government fell because they collided with the Unions at a time when the Unions were strong, and especially the coal miners. A strike reduced the availability of coal at power stations, and that led to power shortages and for a short time major industries were only working three days a week. Heath went to the country in Feb 1974 asking 'who governs Britain?' and lost.

What happened next was indeed an 'intellectual revolution'. Keith Joseph, who had served in Heath's government, and who became known as the mad monk was known to have revisited the classics, not just The Wealth of Nations, but also Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, and of course, Hayek, Friedman, and von Mises.

Joseph was a very dull man indeed, often ill, and thus never going to be a party leader, but he became the eminence grise to Margaret Thatcher and a key feeder of ideas about markets, monetary control, tax cuts and so on, but more than anything else,was his determination to end the 'Keynesian consensus' that had developed since the 1940s.

Thatcher's rhetoric was populist and there was no doubt that she intended to take on the Unions and break them -which she did. She cut taxes ruthlessly, she privatised nationalised industries like steel, gas, coal and transport. Joseph was the guru to the Prophet, if you will. His own speeches were not that dense, and some of his pamphlets were a rehash of Hayek, Friedman and von Mises as usual, so in a pure sense Joseph was not original, but he was intellectual by Conservative Party standards.

Jospeh liked the concept of a ratchet: the 1945 Labour government that created the welfare state and also marked the beginning of large goverment departments, moved the ratchet of policy-making to the left so that when the Tories came in in 1951, they did not revert to stage zero as it were, they agreed not to dismantle the welfare state or denationalise the transport system, health, coal, steel, education and so on. Each government barely moved the ratchet one or two notches: Joseph's dream was ZERO. And thus the Thatcher government moved the ratchet to the right, and lo and behold, after 18 years of Conservative power, what did Blair do? He carried on where Thatcher left off, just as the Tories in 1951; he was reluctant to do anything to undermine the comfortable life -as it was for a while- for the Middle Classes, but especially for his increasing circle of millionaire friends.

In my view we have had a Conservative government in the UK since 1979; and had it not been for the zillions earned from North Sea oil, the mess we are in now would have been visited upon us much earlier.

A long disquisition, but ideas do matter in politics, even if working politicians generally are not intellectual -although Bill Bradlee was known to be one, not sure if he is still around.

[Ben]

I hope Sarah Palin enters the race. Because by the sounds of it, well, she'll be the moderate. That's no joke. That's how far right the Republican Party has moved.

Sarah Palin Slams 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0jin5NVAr8)

[arnie666]

I hope Sarah Palin enters the race. Because by the sounds of it, well, she'll be the moderate. That's no joke. That's how far right the Republican Party has moved.

Sarah Palin Slams 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0jin5NVAr8)

I predicted this several years ago that she would gradually move more into the centre as she knows she has to appeal to independents.Remember what Bill Clinton said about her, that she has good political instincts and a bullshitter knows a fellow bullshitter. ,she never struck me as far right in the first place anyway really , look how she took on her own when she was governor. A lot of the media talk of her being very conservative was mainly because she was a bible thumper, but when actually in government she always was willing to work with democrats. That was why before she took on the annointed one, she was thought of highly by many of the left in alaska.

She has also come out very libertarian on things like pot possession,saying while it should be illegal it should be decriminalised. She is meant to have a load of ex hillary supporters ,some gay rights group who say they will support her if she runs and plus her main diehard supporter in the media is a woman called tammy bruce, an ex leader of the feminist group NOW who is also a lesbian.

Fox news has already turned against her, O'reilly ,ingraham and coulter are talking shit about her now and publishing polls of 700 -1000 people which apparently say she should not run. Well as Tony Blair said,and he knows how to get elected, polls put out by media networks try to influence the weather rather than showing it. Fox wants someone from the golfing set to run.

Plus has she had another breast enlargement? I swear her breasts look bigger, maybe in time for her run for the presidency?

[giovanni_hotel]

Be serious.

Do conservatives on this board look at the ENTIRE Republican presidential candidate field and believe Palin would be the BEST commander in chief to lead us out of this economic morass??

No intelligent conservative I know IRL with a job and a college degree wants Palin to win the GOP nomination.
She's a cheerleader. A flame thrower. A cheap shot artist.

But would you want her to be the CEO of your company?? Your country??
I've never been impressed with Sarah Palin intellectually which is always the first test a candidate must pass in my mind. She was governor of essentially a National Park for two years and even that proved to be too arduous for her.

I don't agree with Romney's politics, but I know intuitively the job won't be too big for him.
Palin would be a disaster as POTUS and would be at risk of suffering from a nervous breakdown in the OVal Office. THe woman simply doesn't process stress very well, and when things get too hectic her M.O. is to either jet or change the rules to what suits her personally.

If she is running for POTUS, doesn't it frustrate you that she's dodging these primary debates among her peers and rivals???

THat's pussy.
At least pick a candidate that doesn't make Dubya seem intellectually gifted.

[Prospero]

So depressing. Your huge and powerful nation with great places of learning like harvard, yale, princeton etc produces a field of idiots on the Right. All of them. Simpletons. They can't even produce a Nixon these days. What is wrong with the USA?

[Faldur]

So depressing. Your huge and powerful nation with great places of learning like harvard, yale, princeton etc produces a field of idiots on the Right. All of them. Simpletons. They can't even produce a Nixon these days. What is wrong with the USA?

I guess if you think were fucked up, were on the right track.

http://www.it-networks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/london_riot.jpg

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/08/08/144661-london-riots.jpg

[needsum]

I believe this is all evidence that we desperately need to end thie two-party system in this country and make it possible for a third party to have a real chance at running and winning. people are so polarized to think they HAVE to vote DEM or REPUB that anyone other has no chance to be taken seriously. Both sides have had their hands in the cookie jar for so long that honestly, they have become practically indistinguishable in terms of favorable results for this country. I look at the gaggle of jerkoffs lined up to represent the GOP, and I laugh. I look at Obama, and I think, oh well, nice try fella. The entire system is so bass-ackward that there really is no matter as to who gets into office. right, left, center, if you're a part of the machine, in my eyes, you're already an asshole and have no business running my life. But all we can do is just ploid along like lemmings and keep pulling levers an dpushing buttons for the "less evil" of the two candidates, as we see it.

[Stavros]

So depressing. Your huge and powerful nation with great places of learning like harvard, yale, princeton etc produces a field of idiots on the Right. All of them. Simpletons. They can't even produce a Nixon these days. What is wrong with the USA?

In the Republican debate the other night people like Perry and Romney argued that you can't run America if you haven't run a business -the Ivy League route to national politics, like Oxbridge, seems to lead to the Law before it gets to the Senate or the House, but I don't know that Lawyers are any better qualified to be President than a Pizza Guy. In the end, these people have teams to develop policy, its never down to one man (or woman) -the real problem, as Giovanni put it in another thread, is that American capitalism cannot compete; low-skilled, labour intensive jobs have gone overseas; but Prospero cast your mind back over the years and ask yourself how many candidates on either side would you have voted for were you American -and voted for with enthusiasm? And Nixon was a lawyer...

[Ben]

So depressing. Your huge and powerful nation with great places of learning like harvard, yale, princeton etc produces a field of idiots on the Right. All of them. Simpletons. They can't even produce a Nixon these days. What is wrong with the USA?

In the Republican debate the other night people like Perry and Romney argued that you can't run America if you haven't run a business -the Ivy League route to national politics, like Oxbridge, seems to lead to the Law before it gets to the Senate or the House, but I don't know that Lawyers are any better qualified to be President than a Pizza Guy. In the end, these people have teams to develop policy, its never down to one man (or woman) -the real problem, as Giovanni put it in another thread, is that American capitalism cannot compete; low-skilled, labour intensive jobs have gone overseas; but Prospero cast your mind back over the years and ask yourself how many candidates on either side would you have voted for were you American -and voted for with enthusiasm? And Nixon was a lawyer...

I think it should be down to just one person. People's opinions are irrelevant. Public policy shouldn't reflect public opinion. I mean, people's opinions are totally irrelevant in a democracy. (I mean, imagine if we, say, had direct democracy. Frightening to think about. I mean, I don't want a Texas farmer or a Wal-Mart worker deciding policy. I mean, that's frightening. That's why spectator democracy works so well. Because it makes the population irrelevant and mere spectators. Better people watch football than getting involved in profound policy decisions. Texas farmers simply don't have the smarts to participate in profound policy decisions.)
The only function people should perform is to pull a lever once every four years and then go away and watch football and leave policy decisions to the smart guys like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
That's democracy, that's democracy in a nutshell.
And it's pretty superficial if ya ask me -- :)
I should clarify: I don't believe a word that I've just written. I mean, I think if we're going to live in a meaningful democracy public policy should reflect public opinion. Otherwise democracy, meaningful democracy is but a joke.

[Ben]

A revealing outbreak of candor

Political and financial Masters of the Universe make it clear who "matters" -- and it's not the American people

By David Sirota (http://www.salon.com/author/david_sirota/index.html)

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/07/oligarchycandor/md_horiz.jpg Larry Summers


If honesty is contagious, then we may be experiencing a brief outbreak right now as America's political and business elite seem momentarily intent on acknowledging oligarchic reality.
On Sunday, as previously noted (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/06/shockreform), the New York Times quoted Tom Watkins, a top business consultant, admitting that corporate education reformers are hoping the recession continues so that nobody notices their scheme to convert public schools into high-tech companies' private profit-making machines.
Two other similarly frank declarations from our political and financial Masters of the Universe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95212385) provide candid, if brutal, insights into how the elite see the economy and democracy.
First up was Larry Summers, the hedge funder (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4iGjejJVRko%22)-turned-architect of the Obama administration's economic program. In a little-noticed speech (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110825006115/en/World-BPOITO-Forum-2011-iRise-CEO-Stresses) he revealed a reason the Obama administration may not have been nearly as focused on creating American jobs as many had hoped:
"There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world," stated Summers. "We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing." (emphasis added)
Before departing his White House perch, Summers was the Obama official who led (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2009/02/obama_administration_critical.html) the administration's successful fight (http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/05/will-summers-beat-biden-on-buy-american) against congressional Democrats' proposed "Buy American" provisions. Those provisions, which would have mandated stimulus funds actually be spent in the United States, were needed to prevent what Businessweek (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008125009/how-make-sure-stimulus-stimulates-our-economy-not-chinas) called "leakage," i.e., stimulus money heading overseas to subsidize offshoring. Thanks to Summers, though, the "Buy American" proposals in the stimulus were gutted. Now we know why: because, as he made clear in his recent speech, he's against any effort to halt the flow of American jobs offshore, even during a massive unemployment crisis. (Considering how closely this tracks to the Bush administration's position on outsourcing (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/13/opinion/main600351.shtml), we can add Summers' revelation to the long and growing list of similarities between the Obama and Bush White Houses.)

Then came the New Republic's Jonathan Chait, who (true to his signature contrarian form) penned a screed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/magazine/what-the-left-doesnt-understand-about-obama.html?_r=1%22) in the New York Times criticizing the American left for daring to question President Obama about the gap between campaign promises and governmental actions. In the process of lambasting those who had presciently argued for a bigger stimulus program, Chait exposed how he and most of his fellow elites in Washington see the general public:
"At the time, Obama’s $800 billion stimulus was seen by Congress, pundits and business leaders -- that is to say, just about everybody who mattered -- as mind-bogglingly large." (emphasis added)
In declaring who "matters" and who doesn't, Chait took a cue from Dick ("Public Opinion Doesn't Matter" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805)) Cheney, who famously (http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/19/why-does-dick-cheney-hate-the-american-people) insisted that the American people are insignificant serfs. Only, in this case, Chait shows us the obverse of the Cheney-ism -- he tells us the only people who supposedly do "matter." In the nation's capital, that's Washington politicians, Washington pundits and corporate executives. Everyone else -- tens of millions of Americans who think differently -- are of little concern.
Give Watkins, Summers and Chait some credit for giving the public a rare glimpse into the true motives that forge elite consensus. Often, those shadowy forces are buried under platitudes and poll-tested buzzwords. So when openly expressed, these statements help us understand how seemingly haphazard Washington policymaking actually expresses a cogent ideology.
The trouble, of course, is that ideology runs counter to what most Americans want: a government that defends their interests.

[Helvis2012]

She's milking it for all it's worth and laughing at all those morons throwing their money at her, all the way the bank.

[arnie666]

Be serious.

Do conservatives on this board look at the ENTIRE Republican presidential candidate field and believe Palin would be the BEST commander in chief to lead us out of this economic morass??

No intelligent conservative I know IRL with a job and a college degree wants Palin to win the GOP nomination.
She's a cheerleader. A flame thrower. A cheap shot artist.

But would you want her to be the CEO of your company?? Your country??
I've never been impressed with Sarah Palin intellectually which is always the first test a candidate must pass in my mind. She was governor of essentially a National Park for two years and even that proved to be too arduous for her.

I don't agree with Romney's politics, but I know intuitively the job won't be too big for him.
Palin would be a disaster as POTUS and would be at risk of suffering from a nervous breakdown in the OVal Office. THe woman simply doesn't process stress very well, and when things get too hectic her M.O. is to either jet or change the rules to what suits her personally.

If she is running for POTUS, doesn't it frustrate you that she's dodging these primary debates among her peers and rivals???

THat's pussy.
At least pick a candidate that doesn't make Dubya seem intellectually gifted.

Well these days a university degree is no guarantee that the person is highly intelligent.

Most of the people I know with university degrees don't know anything about UK politics ,let alone international politics. Sure they might read the occasional newspaper but their understanding doesn't go beyond that. Most people these days are two lazy to do their own research ,have no real interest and are bombarded with media talking points 24/7,

So it doesn't really surprise me that you might know people with a college degree who doesn't think much of sarah palin. And there are conservatives and liberals for that matter ,who wouldn't like any woman as president no matter what her views were,how old she was what her background was or how intelligent she sounded. And it wouldn't surprise me either,that there are conservatives who see a liberal friend foaming at the mouth at the mention of palin and decide to keep their opinions to themselves because it isn't the 'popular' opinion.

Much of what else you say has been refuted countless times, and what it comes down to is you plain just dislike her. ,perhaps it's because she is a straight,white conservative, pretty female who decided not to abort her down syndrome baby,perhaps it's because she is a christian. Perhaps it is just her politics. Perhaps it's how she gives those speeches. And knowing those seductive media talking points about her makes it easier for you to slam her.

My opinion,she is a pretty decent politician,not amazing but pretty decent . I think if she entered the race it would definately change the stakes and she would straight away be in the top 3, which is why many in the conservative side pushing for other candidates don't want her to run. I think there is a 50/50 chance she would end up facing off against either romney or perry .If she entered as a republican I think she would have an easier time beating obama than winning the republican primary,which will be very hard for her . I also think there is a small chance she will be a third party candidate in which case she will poll a decent amount but not win.

I do however have skepticism about her and all the other contenders as president. Palin makes a lot of promises (just like Obama did and look how that turned out ),but will things really be all that different if she or any of the others won? Palin is my favourite of them, and I would be disappointed if she either did not run or lost,what would disappoint me more and would seriously anger me ,would be if she won and then ended up being another Bush, or another Obama.

[Helvis2012]

Well these days a university degree is no guarantee that the person is highly intelligent.

Most of the people I know with university degrees don't know anything about UK politics ,let alone international politics. Sure they might read the occasional newspaper but their understanding doesn't go beyond that. Most people these days are two lazy to do their own research ,have no real interest and are bombarded with media talking points 24/7,

So it doesn't really surprise me that you might know people with a college degree who doesn't think much of sarah palin. And there are conservatives and liberals for that matter ,who wouldn't like any woman as president no matter what her views were,how old she was what her background was or how intelligent she sounded. And it wouldn't surprise me either,that there are conservatives who see a liberal friend foaming at the mouth at the mention of palin and decide to keep their opinions to themselves because it isn't the 'popular' opinion.

Much of what else you say has been refuted countless times, and what it comes down to is you plain just dislike her. ,perhaps it's because she is a straight,white conservative, pretty female who decided not to abort her down syndrome baby,perhaps it's because she is a christian. Perhaps it is just her politics. Perhaps it's how she gives those speeches. And knowing those seductive media talking points about her makes it easier for you to slam her.

My opinion,she is a pretty decent politician,not amazing but pretty decent . I think if she entered the race it would definately change the stakes and she would straight away be in the top 3, which is why many in the conservative side pushing for other candidates don't want her to run. I think there is a 50/50 chance she would end up facing off against either romney or perry .If she entered as a republican I think she would have an easier time beating obama than winning the republican primary,which will be very hard for her . I also think there is a small chance she will be a third party candidate in which case she will poll a decent amount but not win.

I do however have skepticism about her and all the other contenders as president. Palin makes a lot of promises (just like Obama did and look how that turned out ),but will things really be all that different if she or any of the others won? Palin is my favourite of them, and I would be disappointed if she either did not run or lost,what would disappoint me more and would seriously anger me ,would be if she won and then ended up being another Bush, or another Obama.



Yeah, right. Anything you say. What's next? Stupid is the new smart?

No wonder this country is so fucked up.

[Silcc69]

i believe this is all evidence that we desperately need to end thie two-party system in this country and make it possible for a third party to have a real chance at running and winning. People are so polarized to think they have to vote dem or repub that anyone other has no chance to be taken seriously. Both sides have had their hands in the cookie jar for so long that honestly, they have become practically indistinguishable in terms of favorable results for this country. I look at the gaggle of jerkoffs lined up to represent the gop, and i laugh. I look at obama, and i think, oh well, nice try fella. The entire system is so bass-ackward that there really is no matter as to who gets into office. Right, left, center, if you're a part of the machine, in my eyes, you're already an asshole and have no business running my life. But all we can do is just ploid along like lemmings and keep pulling levers an dpushing buttons for the "less evil" of the two candidates, as we see it.

afuckinmen!

[arnie666]

New york times on their discovery that Sarah Palin actually has ideas!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=2

A quite positive article on her antiestablishment views (which people who followed her political career already knew ) .That is what the left do not get, the republicans fear a sarah palin first term more than an obama second term,because unlike him she has the spine to clean them out. She has form for it.

Now they may well be putting a positive spin on her, thinking it will harm the golfing set of the republican party, who they believe represent more of a threat to Obamas presidency, but still be careful what you wish for.

[Stavros]

This thread might as well as be on George Clooney's credentials to be President.

[giovanni_hotel]

Imagine how differently things would have been if Dubya had chosen Colin Powell to be his VP instead of Cheney??

IMO DUbya's arrogance and delegating too much authority and trusting the opinion of Cheney is what made his presidency in many respects a failure.

The economy may have still tanked if Powell was VP, but we NEVER would have had Iraq War fiasco.

And I feel that Summers may end up being the architect of BHO's one term as POTUS.
Dude is a nut. I remember when he was the President of Harvard and he stated that women were intellectually deficient in math and science.

I'm less concerned with who the POTUS is as I am with who those individuals are who bend their ear.

[Faldur]

I'm less concerned with who the POTUS is as I am with who those individuals are who bend their ear.

So what are your feelings about Jeff Immelts sitting in the guest box, next to Michelle Obama at the "speech of all speeches"? The guy who personally sent 14,000 US jobs overseas sitting in the honored guest section at a joint session of congress for a speech about creating jobs in the US. Ya all makes sense to me.

[Ben]

Hartmann: Do Thom & Sarah Palin agree on Crony Capitalism? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEotWb9nC8w)

[Ben]

PREZ SAYS Sarah Palin "I Detest Crony Capitalism... On Steroids" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fLm6P2bwOo)

[Ben]

I'm not a fan of either Political Party (both basically representing big business interests) but Sarah Palin is hot -- :) ha ha ha!
And Obama is so deep in the pockets of the corrupt banking sector... aside from his firm ties to big business:

Obamanomics Is Corporatism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyjsicV8VaU)

[Ben]

Michele joins the anti-corporatism rant -- :)

Bachmann Accuses Perry Of 'Crony Capitalism' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYGzCIaa8LA)

[Ben]

Corporate-State &/or crony capitalism run amuck....

The Wrecking Crew, by Thomas Frank - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcEBg8aUtRE)

[giovanni_hotel]

The GOP is the party of corporate America and the financial sector.
It's comical to me that conservatives are accusing Obama of being in the pocket of big business.

It was a conservative Supreme Court that corporations had the same freedom of speech rights as individual citizens, which opened the flood gates for undisclosed hundreds of millions in campaign spending, mainly to benefit Republican candidates.

When the army of lobbyists go to Capitol Hill to write legislation, or rather decide what legislation WON'T be passed, they are in conference with the Speaker of the House and his sidekick Cantor.

Corporate America CONTROLS Congress and their influence in the Oval Office has always been excessive.

[Ben]

The GOP is the party of corporate America and the financial sector.
It's comical to me that conservatives are accusing Obama of being in the pocket of big business.

It was a conservative Supreme Court that corporations had the same freedom of speech rights as individual citizens, which opened the flood gates for undisclosed hundreds of millions in campaign spending, mainly to benefit Republican candidates.

When the army of lobbyists go to Capitol Hill to write legislation, or rather decide what legislation WON'T be passed, they are in conference with the Speaker of the House and his sidekick Cantor.

Corporate America CONTROLS Congress and their influence in the Oval Office has always been excessive.

I think both parties are deep in the pockets of big business. I mean, every sensible person in the real world knows this -- :)
And you're absolutely correct: "Corporate America CONTROLS Congress and their influence in the Oval Office has always been excessive."
This applied to Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr. Clinton (a corporate Democrat) and Obama. It's simply the nature of the system.
There are power systems in our country. And the most powerful institutions in our society are corporations.
Obama, of course, knows this. And has even talked about it. He lives in the real world. Unlike Bachmann and Perry. Who both live in, well, outer-space....
And check out the attachment below. (And this isn't an attack on Obama. I have no idea what he's like in his own personal life. I'm sure he's a very nice man.
It's simply a reflection of the corrupt nature of the system and the power that corporations have over, well, everything. Everything being: education, politics, markets and on and on and on -- :()
.................................................. .................................................. ..


Wall Streeters Top Obama Re-Election Supporters



Friday, 22 Jul 2011 03:58 PM
By Julie Crawshaw

A just-released study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that President Obama is relying more on Wall Street to fund his re-election this year than he did in 2008, according to CNBC, which obtained an advance copy of the report.
The report says that one-third of the money Obama's elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector.
"Individuals who work in the finance, insurance, and real estate sector are responsible for raising at least $11.3 million for Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee," the report says.
And, all of Obama's “bundlers” — top fundraisers who obtain donations from people and groups in their business, professional, and personal networks — have raised a minimum of $34.95 million.
Obama has even added new Wall Streeters who did not work for him in 2008, including former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine, Evercore Partners executive Charles Myers, Greenstreet Real Estate Partners CEO Steven Green, and Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JPMorgan.
Obama and the DNC combined are on pace to far exceed the amounts Obama raised from Wall Street donors in 2008, both in raw dollar amounts and as a percentage of what he raises overall.
According to the Center's research, Obama fundraisers who worked in the finance, insurance and real estate sector were responsible for a minimum of $16 million, or about 21 percent of the $76.5 million estimated minimum amount brought in by top bundlers.
Moreover, the Center has identified 80 bundlers — out of 244 whose names were released by the Obama campaign last week — who are part of the financial sector.
Forty-four of these specifically work for the securities and investment industry.
United Press International reports that Obama has raised more money than his Republican rivals in 36 states and Washington, D.C.