WWTSBQ deja vu

 

It’s interesting how the concern troll boiz on the right are just like the concern troll boiz on the left.

Here is Mark Halperin in 2008  laying out 14 reasons why Hillary should quit the primary.

Here is John Ziegler today saying he is willing to bet $100,000 that Sarah Palin won’t get elected, and therefore should not try to get nominated.

But regardless, to Nolte and all other commentators who claim I am wrong about Palin’s chances in 2012, I simply ask you to put your money where your mouth is. I am officially offering a $1,000 bet, at incredible 100-1 odds, that Palin will not be inaugurated president of the United States in January of 2013. This unbelievable $100,000 offer (along with details as to how I would pay in full with the money I had reserved for the charity offer that Keith Olbermann dodged) is available to the first prominent conservative who takes me up on it.

 

Thy are always so concerned, so very concerned.

This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Palinpalooza, Sarah Palin, Sexism and Misogyny. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to WWTSBQ deja vu

  1. votermom says:

    C4P is reporting that there will be a special advanced screening of the Palin documentary “The Undefeated” this Wednesday in NYC.
    http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/06/a-special-screening-for-the-undefeated-will-take-place-this-wednesday-in-new-york-city.html

    This comment on the thread was interesting

    Wait a minute…isn’t Huntsman supposed to announce Tuesday in New York?

    Now, there just so happens to be a screening in New York of “The Undefeated” on Wednesday?

    Who thinks that Sarah’s bus tour might just-so-happen to appear in New York the same day Huntsman announces, to stop his momentum?

  2. myiq2xu says:

    There really seems to be a cottage industry of people explaining why Sarah can’t win and shouldn’t run.

    • jjmtacoma says:

      Yeah, it is funny because I don’t think I’ve seen anyone suggest Romney or any of the others should just drop out because they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.

      IIRC, only one person will actually get the nomination – so there will be several who don’t make the cut.

      • ralphb says:

        Everyone will be a winner except Palin, who can’t win anything.

      • WMCB says:

        Ron Paul runs every 4 years, and he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning anything. Yet the media at worst ignores him. You never hear them having endless discussions of what an out-there crank he is, and why he’s just RUINING things for the “real” candidates if he runs, and how egotistical and self-absorbed and stooooopid he is for not realizing that he’s a nobody.

        But then, Ron Paul, looney tune that he is, has a penis. He gets 30 points worth of “being taken seriously” just for that.

        I’m not a big Sarah fan. I honestly hope that we could do better than her for president. But I will never understand or approve of her being treated so differently than every other run-of-the-mill conservative. Which is precisely what she is. Better in some areas, no worse in others. Yet somehow that makes her THE DEVIL, while someone with many views that are REALLY out of the mainstream (i.e Ron Paul) gets treated like a perfectly legitimate candidate with some amusing eccentricities.

        • Jadzia says:

          Hear, hear. I have heard so many women politicians called “crazy” or some version thereof that at this point it’s all noise.

          T-minus 15 days and counting! I’m thinking about blogging our great emigration adventure.

        • ralphb says:

          WMCB, Though I see you on Facebook when I go there, your presence has been greatly missed. Howdy! 🙂

        • votermom says:

          Hi WMCB!!!!
          *waves*

        • WMCB says:

          I took a lengthy political hiatus. I can’t deal with being angry/disgusted/worried 24/7.

          I truly feel like a political outsider anymore. I’ll vote, but that’s about it – and not with much enthusiasm. Hubby and I are seriously discussing ditching the USA for Panama in a few years. It has no military. None. The citizens demanded it be disbanded 20 years ago after Noriega, and don’t want another one. They aim to be the Switzerland of central america. The climate in the mountains is amazing. It’s safer than here. It has semi-socialized medicine, good infrastructure, and very strong labor laws. The economy is thriving. Their banks have almost zero sub-prime exposure, and are capitalized at .68 per dollar, vs. our .03 per dollar. And their constitution FORBIDS the creation of a central bank like our Federal Reserve.

        • Jadzia says:

          We should start a group emigration blog! I leave for France on July 5. : )

        • ralphb says:

          And don’t leave out that Panama is still cheaper than Costa Rica, with most of the good points. US Expats have been slower to find Panama and Belize.

        • WMCB says:

          Congrats on the big move, Jadzia! Yeah, we had always looked at possibly retiring out of the US, but now he’s talking about doing it early and just doing locum tenens (temp work for docs) off and on to stretch the bank account. He could work less than half the year and make plenty to live on there.

        • WMCB says:

          myiq, I hear their local beer is pretty good (they have 2 or 3 home brands). You can get american and european beer there too – it just costs more.

        • myiq2xu says:

          If their beer is good I’m in

        • ralphb says:

          Can’t remember any Panamanian beers but Premium is a good Costa Rican brew.

        • WMCB says:

          Hey, and remember when a regular old savings account returned 3 to 4% interest? It still does there.

        • Jadzia says:

          WMCB I am continually shocked at how much less it is going to cost us to live in France — FRANCE!!! — than in small-city Oregon. Of course a great deal of the savings are due to child benefits, the free public education from daycare through college, and the health care (of course you do pay for it with your taxes, but here in the U.S. I pay a whole lot of taxes that DON’T include my health insurance). However, our housing costs (we will not be in Paris) will be substantially lower, and the things that are more expensive there (like groceries and gasoline) are not big enough budget items that they would change the analysis in a material way.

          I do want to return to work outside the home (not this work-from-home crap) full time, and I’m looking forward to living under a system that doesn’t make it economically irrational for me to have a job and a life outside the house. Because frankly I am going BSC here trying to lawyer and wrangle 3 little kids at the same time.

        • 1539days says:

          Plus, if you want Italian food, you can just drive to Italy.

    • djmm says:

      The only person who should decide if Gov. Palin should run is Gov. Palin. Not the boys’ press club.

      I prefer that she run — she makes their heads (figuratively) explode, which is fun to watch.

      djmm

      • myiq2xu says:

        The only person who should decide if Gov. Palin should run is Gov. Palin.

        And the only people who should decide if she can win or not are the voters.

        • What!!!???? What sort of society and system of government do you think we have here? Why, that would be barbaric. Who knows what those stupid voters would do if we didn’t guide them towards superior people like Bush or Obama.

          I hope I didn’t need a snark font there. 🙂

  3. ralphb says:

    Screw the trolls and all the rest. Anyone who wants to run for President, or anything else, should do so and let the voters decide. The Powers That Be in this country seem to have way too much concern about what the voters might do for my tastes. They should STFU and get out of the way.

    By the way, this is a great article on reducing health care costs in the US that just might work.

    http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/19/the-most-important-organization-in-silicon-valley-that-no-one-has-heard-about/

    • votermom says:

      That makes sense to me. Eliminate the 3rd party profit-makers and pay directly to the service providers, but with a membership plan so that costs are manageable.

      The problem will arise when they need care outside of this provides … so I guess they still need to have catastrophic/major medical insurance for that.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Sounds like local health insurance co-ops. Saves money for its members, supports primary care physicians. Not sure how well it would scale to cover big costs.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    BTW – Whenever Zeigler mentions Sarah the words “disgruntled ex-employee” should appear next to his name. He’s pissed because Sarah didn’t make him her top advisor or something.

    • ralphb says:

      That’s the truth. The poor, pitiful me, me, me, me of his last writings were pathetic.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    From the Halperin link:

    1. She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.

    […]

    3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.

    Without the RBC decision Hillary had more elected delegates and more popular votes

  6. catarina says:

    John who?

  7. catarina says:

    Ziegler has served his purpose and is attempting to stay relevant.
    Go away now, John. Buh bye.

  8. 1539days says:

    The Democratic Party generally discards their losers. The Republicans do not. Reagan ran three times, won the last time and a reelection after that. Bush Sr. ran against Reagan and lost, then eventually became president. Nixon made it all the way to the general election and lost and still became preisident 8 years later.

    There is no penalty for losing in the Republican Party. Sarah should run, even if she loses in 2012, just to have the opportunity in 2016.

Comments are closed.