Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday's interview by Chris Wallace..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... rah-palin/


WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

Wedgebuster wrote:Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday's interview by Chris Wallace..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... rah-palin/


WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

She's rated below Dan Quayle, so here opinion really doesn't mean much. She sounds like too much of a war-monger for the average American to support. Most American's want out of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Mid-East.

Just ignore the woman. She'll be a receding memory by next year.

Ivytalk wrote:Just ignore the woman. She'll be a receding memory by next year.

Well, I doubt she'll be a receding memory - I think she's going to be a political personality for years to come. Of course, that doesn't mean she's a serious Presidential candidate, because she flatly isn't and won't be one - ever. But, if Newt Gringrich has remained in the public's view for this long, there's no way that Palin isn't still very visible for years to come. But no way does she get close to a legit Presidential run.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Just ignore the woman. She'll be a receding memory by next year.

Well, I doubt she'll be a receding memory - I think she's going to be a political personality for years to come. Of course, that doesn't mean she's a serious Presidential candidate, because she flatly isn't and won't be one - ever. But, if Newt Gringrich has remained in the public's view for this long, there's no way that Palin isn't still very visible for years to come. But no way does she get close to a legit Presidential run.

Agreed. But she could have enough of a run to cause problems for a viable GOP candidate.

Play the war card to get re-elected? You mean like Dubya?

@ Wedgie's avatar

dbackjon wrote:Play the war card to get re-elected? You mean like Dubya?

So Obama did run against Bush

dbackjon wrote:Play the war card to get re-elected? You mean like Dubya?

I don't think Dubya went to war to get re-elected. But once we were at war, it was real easy to use the argument that he should be re-elected because we shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war.

Interestingly, if we are still in either Iraq or Afghanistan in 2012 Obama will be able to use the same argument.

Wedgebuster wrote:Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday's interview by Chris Wallace..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... rah-palin/


WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

Please don't tell me you actually think she "would like" Obama to declare war on Iran....

Newt Gingrich is a more legitimate presidential candidate than Palin.

dbackjon wrote:Play the war card to get re-elected? You mean like Dubya?

Nah, Bush got re-elected when the Dems went with the hapless campaign of Kerry/Edwards. Just like the GOP sent Dole up against Clinton, or when the Dems sent Gore up against Bush, or when the GOP sent McCain up against Obama, there's often no way around a dud of a candidate. That's the GOP's problem in 2012 - who do they have who's not DOA - a dud on arrival? Heck, I think Hillary has a better chance of knocking off Obama in 2012 in the primaries, and I doubt that's happening.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Play the war card to get re-elected? You mean like Dubya?

I don't think Dubya went to war to get re-elected. But once we were at war, it was real easy to use the argument that he should be re-elected because we shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war.

Interestingly, if we are still in either Iraq or Afghanistan in 2012 Obama will be able to use the same argument.

Wouldn't put it past Cheney/Rummy.

BlueHen86 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, I doubt she'll be a receding memory - I think she's going to be a political personality for years to come. Of course, that doesn't mean she's a serious Presidential candidate, because she flatly isn't and won't be one - ever. But, if Newt Gringrich has remained in the public's view for this long, there's no way that Palin isn't still very visible for years to come. But no way does she get close to a legit Presidential run.

Agreed. But she could have enough of a run to cause problems for a viable GOP candidate.

The bright side about that is that Palin's biggest selling point is her proclaiming to be fiscally conservative (not saying whether she truthfully practiced that or not as governor in Alaska). If she's in the race long enough to ensure who ever comes out as the GOP nominee, at least that will be a good thing.

dbackjon wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't think Dubya went to war to get re-elected. But once we were at war, it was real easy to use the argument that he should be re-elected because we shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war.

Interestingly, if we are still in either Iraq or Afghanistan in 2012 Obama will be able to use the same argument.

Wouldn't put it past Cheney/Rummy.

Cheney maybe, but Rummy? War was the worst thing that could've happened for him. Rumsfeld was way out of his league once it went from being Sec of Defense trying to remake the Pentagon and the military to one where the Sec of Defense needed to supervise an actual war effort. Once war started, Rumsfeld was one of the least qualified persons for that job. Can't see why he would've pushed for his own demise.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Just ignore the woman. She'll be a receding memory by next year.

Well, I doubt she'll be a receding memory - I think she's going to be a political personality for years to come. Of course, that doesn't mean she's a serious Presidential candidate, because she flatly isn't and won't be one - ever. But, if Newt Gringrich has remained in the public's view for this long, there's no way that Palin isn't still very visible for years to come. But no way does she get close to a legit Presidential run.

Well, GF, IDGAS. I'm putting her on ignore. The same way I put Barry Sortero, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi on ignore. I'm not watching her on TV, listening to her on the radio, or buying her book. I haven't read either of Mr. Sortero's autobiographies, either, and I'm more enlightened as a result. Ditto for Jenny Sanford, John Edwards's former hatchet man, and any other politico who tries to make a quick buck at the expense of a gullible public and his/her own self-respect.

Ivytalk wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, I doubt she'll be a receding memory - I think she's going to be a political personality for years to come. Of course, that doesn't mean she's a serious Presidential candidate, because she flatly isn't and won't be one - ever. But, if Newt Gringrich has remained in the public's view for this long, there's no way that Palin isn't still very visible for years to come. But no way does she get close to a legit Presidential run.

Well, GF, IDGAS. I'm putting her on ignore. The same way I put Barry Sortero, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi on ignore. I'm not watching her on TV, listening to her on the radio, or buying her book. I haven't read either of Mr. Sortero's autobiographies, either, and I'm more enlightened as a result. Ditto for Jenny Sanford, John Edwards's former hatchet man, and any other politico who tries to make a quick buck at the expense of a gullible public and his/her own self-respect.

Hey by all means, I don't listen to her either. All I was saying is that we're going to have to go on not listening to her in the future as she isn't going away anytime soon. But I have found that as I get older it is easier to tune out things like this - and this is all before I even start to lose my vision or need a hearing aid!

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Wouldn't put it past Cheney/Rummy.

Cheney maybe, but Rummy? War was the worst thing that could've happened for him. Rumsfeld was way out of his league once it went from being Sec of Defense trying to remake the Pentagon and the military to one where the Sec of Defense needed to supervise an actual war effort. Once war started, Rumsfeld was one of the least qualified persons for that job. Can't see why he would've pushed for his own demise.

I know he was out of his league. You knew it. Problem was, neither he or Dubya knew it.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Cheney maybe, but Rummy? War was the worst thing that could've happened for him. Rumsfeld was way out of his league once it went from being Sec of Defense trying to remake the Pentagon and the military to one where the Sec of Defense needed to supervise an actual war effort. Once war started, Rumsfeld was one of the least qualified persons for that job. Can't see why he would've pushed for his own demise.

I know he was out of his league. You knew it. Problem was, neither he or Dubya knew it.

No argument there with Dubya - he just couldn't come around to the idea that Rumsfeld was an abysmal failure.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Well, GF, IDGAS. I'm putting her on ignore. The same way I put Barry Sortero, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi on ignore. I'm not watching her on TV, listening to her on the radio, or buying her book. I haven't read either of Mr. Sortero's autobiographies, either, and I'm more enlightened as a result. Ditto for Jenny Sanford, John Edwards's former hatchet man, and any other politico who tries to make a quick buck at the expense of a gullible public and his/her own self-respect.

Hey by all means, I don't listen to her either. All I was saying is that we're going to have to go on not listening to her in the future as she isn't going away anytime soon. But I have found that as I get older it is easier to tune out things like this - and this is all before I even start to lose my vision or need a hearing aid!

Well, GF, I think I inherited the trait from my old man. Putting politicos on ignore probably added 10 years to his life. Starting with the quadrennial gabfests called the party conventions!

dbackjon wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't think Dubya went to war to get re-elected. But once we were at war, it was real easy to use the argument that he should be re-elected because we shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war.

Interestingly, if we are still in either Iraq or Afghanistan in 2012 Obama will be able to use the same argument.

Wouldn't put it past Cheney/Rummy.

That wouldn't happen. It isn't realistic.

Ibanez, your siggy picture is just gross. Please change it or else!

Thank you!

Ivytalk wrote:Ibanez, your siggy picture is just gross. Please change it or else!

Thank you!

Good thing I have signatures turned off. Probably DON"T want to know.

dbackjon wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Ibanez, your siggy picture is just gross. Please change it or else!

Thank you!

Good thing I have signatures turned off. Probably DON"T want to know.

Trust me, you don't!

Ivytalk wrote:Ibanez, your siggy picture is just gross. Please change it or else!

Thank you!

If Bush, picking his nose, offends you, then I'm sorry.




Not really.