Gingrich, Romney and Paul would destroy Palin in the debates. I would actually like to see her run just for the entertainment value of seeing her doing two debates a week. I suspect she will look as bad as if not worse than Perry.
If she WERE to join, now would be the time. There's only one debate scheduled for February so she can avoid that problem for a while. On the flipside, there are a lot of caucus states in February, and she would have no organization in any of them.
Damn, Batman, speaking as a supporter of Jerry Brown and also Jessie Jackson, I am left wondering why you have become so moderate at your young age. PS I still have a slight hope, largely against any evidence, that a second term Obama will see him do something that will lessen the hold of the corporate/military industrial elite. Perhaps a bit of the "audacity of hope". So far he largely seems like Wall Street and big pharma's boy to me. His reforms have been mostly window dressing. He has thrown the Democratic Party under the bus with his talk of joining the GOP in cutting social security, medicare and medicaid and catering to the bs on the importance of the deficit. He might pass a few bills, but there will be no movement or coat tails due to Obama's "getting a few things done." Obama might have plenty of fight in terms of getting elected, but plenty of fight to accomplish anything big, we will have to see. Obama is a place holder for progressive change and we await a leader. I think any real progress made during Obama's term is due to the bad economy starting to wake folks up to fact that they have been losing purchasing power at about 1% a year under GOP/libertarian economics that started with Reagan. With the final blow it has become unbearable.
I forgot that the debates are tailing off. Good point about lack of organization too. Anyway it would take a miracle / disaster for Palin to enter the race. I don't think she has any interest in actually running for office again and if she did I bet it would be as much a vanity campaign as Herman Cain's was.
This might be better served in another thread but I am curious what your opinion is. Do you think that Social Security and Medicare are sustainable as is indefinitely?
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=JWHSJ82R02M2R0SX&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe> Their 4 sons support Ronnie :grin: in other news, Rick Santorum's nephew supports Ron Paul! woot woot. http://www.mediaite.com/online/ouch-rick-santorums-nephew-endorses-ron-paul/
On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, at the very end when they STARTED talking about Ron Paul, they mentioned the thing that would hurt him is the hispanic vote... but why? All the reports I'm seeing, is that Paul leads among the hispanic voters at 42%. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ke...paul-resonates-with-hipanic-voters-in-florida Wolf Blitzer has some interesting things to say too about the great Doc when not on CNN: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JRrVJmBOeKg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Anyone else think it's sick how the candidates now praise Ron Paul and are trying to connect to his fanbase? Do we REALLY want a "politician" to run America or do we want a die hard American?
I'd prefer a non-crazy person. BTW, you need to go hunt down some new talking points for the racist newsletters: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-knew-all-about-those-newsletters.php?ref=fpa But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman. ... “A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative,” the paper reports. “They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.” This is slightly different explanation than the one uncovered by Dave Weigel and the team at Reason back in 2008. Their reporting also found no evidence that Paul believed the stuff in his newsletters. But in their case, the story was that Paul was out to expand the libertarian base by going after the simmering white supremacist/militia/survivalist community. It appears there's more evidence that your diehard American is as corrupt as expected: both a liar and a panderer to try to expand his base by saying things he doesn't believe. Sound familiar?
Ron Paul is a crazy person? Just maybe, a genius looks crazy to ordinary people. This man belongs on Mt. Rushmore.
We will start another thread. Medicare, no, but this is due to the private medicine system for profit being unsustainable. The improved overhead efficiency of Medicare over private insurance bureaucracies is not enough to overcome the needless waste in for profit medicine. Just cutting medicare services to maintain health care CEO salaries and stock holders sucks and is shame on Obama who knows better. Social Security is very sustainable with minor tinkering and Obama knows this. He is just trying to be "bi-partisan" and not rock the vote. google Dean Banker and social security to see some facts not brought to you by the usual gubmint haters or the shills for the mutual fund industry who want to make 1% managing the trillions of social security benefits. Try Krugman on why markets don't work for health care.
