Sarah nails it again

Sarah Palin has it exactly right:

"If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I'd vote for Newt," Palin said.​

Sarah Palin: 'If I were a South Carolinian ... I'd vote for Newt."
by Tony Lee
01/17/2012

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48859

The longer every candidate is denied the nomination the better the chances conservatives and Tea Partiers have of influencing the Republican party’s platform even if they have to accept a CINO nominee.

While the candidates are fighting it out the rest of us better start vetting congressional candidates in our states and districts. There is still time to nominate a bunch of conservatives whose only priority is repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Note that none of the Republicans still standing has declared his unambiguous commitment to that all-important issue —— other than making vague statements claiming they will repeal Hillarycare II. I want to hear a lot more than what I’ve heard so far.

The analysis in the following article makes congressional races far more important than the presidential race no matter who is in the White House for the next four years:

Court angst for left over healthcare
By Sam Baker - 01/18/12 05:00 AM ET

Supporters of President Obama’s healthcare reform have lost the high level of confidence they once displayed that the Supreme Court would throw out constitutional challenges to the law’s individual mandate.

Many liberals and some Democratic leaders initially waved off lawsuits challenging the law’s individual mandate, saying the suits were “frivolous” political stunts.

But that tone has shifted significantly since the Supreme Court devoted nearly six hours to arguments in the case — a modern record. That the high court would set aside so much time for the landmark case suggests that the justices certainly don’t see the challenges as a waste of time.

The law’s critics were also encouraged that the justices agreed to hear arguments against its Medicaid expansion. That part of the suit does not meet the criteria the court usually uses when deciding which cases to consider.

To be sure, supporters of the law still say they think the high court will rule in their favor. But the decisions by the justices have occasioned a note of caution in their voices.

“I think probably the courts took the minimum coverage requirement more seriously than a lot of us had expected … but I still think that the Supreme Court is going to have to stray pretty far from established precedent to find that it’s unconstitutional,” said Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor who supports the healthcare law.

Some congressional Democrats are openly worried that the conservative court will strike down the mandate. And though party leaders have maintained confidence that the law will ultimately prevail, their early braggadocio has mostly disappeared.

When Florida first filed its healthcare lawsuit, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) slammed the case as “grasping at straws” and without legal merit.

“This challenge to healthcare reform is nothing more than pure politics,” she said last March. “It is a stunt to boost the attorney general’s gubernatorial campaign and a waste of the taxpayers’ money.”

Asked recently whether Wasserman Schultz still sees the case that way — and, if so, whether it’s a mistake for the Supreme Court to be spending so much time on it — her office said only that she’s “confident that the Supreme Court will validate the constitutionality of this law.”

When then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked about the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2009, she responded, “Are you serious?” But more recently, Pelosi cited the major implications of the healthcare suit as she urged the Supreme Court to televise arguments in the case. It would be the first time the justices have ever permitted cameras into their chambers.

Lawmakers are clearly loath to say the Supreme Court is wasting its time, especially with the president’s signature domestic achievement on the line. But even before the court announced its nearly unprecedented hearing schedule, the challenges were gaining traction and credibility.

Jost said the states have improved their arguments against the mandate as their case has moved through the courts. Their initial brief was rife with factual errors, he said, but the challenge came into sharper focus during arguments and later briefings.

“I think that some of us have been surprised that claim got as far as it did, but it is a claim that one can argue,” he said of the states’ case against the mandate.

Not everyone on the left has started taking the lawsuits more seriously. Ian Millhiser, a legal analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, said the case is “utterly lacking in merit.” He acknowledged that the states’ challenge is being taken more seriously now, but said the change owes only to a successful public-relations campaign.

“It’s baffling to me that that’s happened,” he said.

There is reason for liberals to be confident: The mandate has a 2-1 record in federal appeals courts, and the two decisions upholding it were written by judges with unquestionable conservative credentials. Only one judge at any level threw out the entire law along with the mandate, and the states have never won their challenge to the law’s Medicaid expansion.

Still, conservatives are finding a bit of vindication in the changing tone on the left.

“The narrative certainly has shifted,” said Ilya Shapiro, a legal analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute who opposes the law. “In the beginning, it was conventional wisdom that this was political sour grapes, legally frivolous, that sort of thing.”

Some of the Republican attorneys general who most aggressively challenged the healthcare law, including Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli, did have clear political aspirations. But conservative legal experts have always said the constitutional questions are legitimate.

“It’s really disingenuous to claim that it’s a slam-dunk” for either side, Shapiro said.

Shapiro said that at the beginning of the process, he saw less than a 50 percent chance the states would ultimately win. But he’s more optimistic now.

“It’s breathtaking to see federal judges saying, ‘Yeah, that is the way the Constitution should be read,’ ” he said. “Once you have facts on the ground, it makes it more realistic.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/204739-court-angst-for-left-over-healthcare

 

Sarah’s comments come near the beginning of this video:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/palin-shed-vote-newt-south-carolina-15384885

Sarah mentions the failure to vet Hussein in 2008. She could have gone back to 1992 when the media failed to vet Bill Clinton.

Obviously, Romney benefits if Newt is in trouble because of his former wife’s upcoming interview. Worse still, voters voting to keep the campaign going will split their votes among the other candidates. Should Newt’s ex torpedo him Ron Paul has to beat Romney in SC. The goal is to give primary victories to every candidate so nobody locks up the convention going in.

No matter how it goes in South Carolina:

“While the candidates are fighting it out the rest of us better start vetting congressional candidates in our states and districts. There is still time to nominate a bunch of conservatives whose only priority is repealing the Affordable Care Act.”

 

Wow … Oh My God … I absolutely laugh my azz off, because every time she opens her mouth, you count on hour’s worth of Comedy Skits. If there was anyone on The Planet Earth who FAILED the Vetting Process … there would be ZERO doubt that Sarah Palin will go down in Political History as being the Poster Child for Vetting Failure.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, just asks John McCain or “anyone” who was on Sarah own “hired staff”!

 

I'm sure you have no idea about anything she says. You are like my sister who hates Sarah Palin so much, she immediately changes the channel when she is on tv. Then she says that she is stupid. Of course, she has no direct knowledge of that, because she never watches her. If you watch her, you will find that she is quite intelligent and astute. She is well read and understands the issues of the day.

The person in politics that is the most stupid today is without a doubt President Obama. He is clueless and in over his head. He has no idea what he is doing. Everytime he is on tv, he makes a fool out of himself. That is why he doesn't do too many interviews anymore.

 

To Cigar: Were you living in a monastery in 2008? Everything about Sarah’s public and private life was sliced and diced before the election. While the liberal media was crucifying her Hussein was given a free ride. He was the chosen one. Nothing would have been said to tarnish his Mr. Wonderful image were it not for the Internet. What little corruption did come out was glorified by the media. His time as a community organizer is just one of the things the media reported as a positive. Everything Sarah did was trivialized. Try to imagine how Hussein would have looked had he received the treatment Sarah got.

To PatriotNews: Good lord! The media told us Hussein is the smartest president this country ever had. Were they wrong?

 

All I can say is Wow ... just Wow ...

 

Sarah lives in the box defined by her fundamentalist religious beliefs and understands little beyond that.

There is nothing wrong with Sarah having the beliefs she does, silly as these beliefs may seem to anyone with a shred of objective reasoning capacity, it is a free country after all.

The problem is that Sarah can not distinguish the difference between "having a belief" and "forcing that belief on others" which is against the intention and spirit of the constitution.

She then turns around and claims that we need to uphold the Constitution.

How can I have any confidence in a person that stumps for the Constitution when that person clearly has no concept or understanding of the document.

In addition, most of Sarah's talking points make little sense. She is just repeating canned talking points with little understanding of what she is talking about be it, jobs, debt, foreign policy and so on.

Personally I think Sarah is quite a likable person and is able to connect with with the average Joe which is partly why she has made it so far. The average Joe really does not understand the above issues either and so her musings will hit home with many.

 

I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. I agree with Sarah’s take on Florida although I can’t say how far she is willing to go. I want to see this thing end in an open convention. Maybe then establishment Republicans will learn that conservatives are not a minor subdivision of the Republican party taking orders from the home office.

An open convention also gives conservatives a meaningful voice in writing the party’s platform. You can be sure the last thing the media wants is conservatives with clout.

To no one’s surprise FOX, along with the other networks, is in the tank for Romney. See the following article:

FOX News segment with Sarah Palin abruptly cut off
by Tony Lee
1/29/2012

On FOX News on Saturday, in an interview with Jeanine Pirro, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed to be abruptly cut off as she talked about how voters did not want to obey what the Republican establishment often tries to force on them. Pirro abruptly cut Palin off and said she had to go to a “hard break” but then promoted another segment. After the commercial break, Palin was no longer on the air.

Palin’s spent a lot of time in the interview criticizing the Republican establishment and pundits (she even referenced FOX News) who wanted to the end the primary process after Tuesday’s Florida primary, which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is favored to win. Palin said her answer to them would simply be, “no.”

“That's what I say when I hear pundits on this network and other networks -- gleefully proclaiming that it's all over by Florida -- despite the fact that 47 states, until today have not been able to chime into the process yet,” Palin said. “We see these pundits and politicos and elites in faraway Washington, D.C... telling the electorate that hey, by Florida, it's going to be all wrapped up and we'll have our nominee, and I'm saying, no, don't let that happen because they do need to toughen up, they need to debate these ideas so we elect -- through our nominating process -- the best candidate to come up against Barack Obama and his failed policies.”

Palin reiterated that her answer to “these folks who want to shut it down” after Florida was, “No.”

Palin said she wanted to hear more from Rick Santorum and his fierce criticisms of ObamaCare and, in a reference to Romney, why Republicans should support the “architect of ObamaCare.”

She said she wanted to hear more from Ron Paul about fiscal issues.

She said she wanted to hear more from Gingrich about the Reagan revolution of which Gingrich was a part, and how it “shook up the establishment back then” and how they can do it again.

Palin also said she wanted to hear more from Romney about how he is not ashamed of his personal, financial wealth, especially if he “worked hard for that money in an ethical fashion.”

But Palin saved her most favorable words for Gingrich, who she said came under assault by an establishment that feared an “agent of change.”

“When both party machines are trying to crucify him... you have to rage against the machine to defend our republic,” Palin said. “We need someone engaged in sudden and relentless reform.”

Added Palin: “Rage against the machine, vote for Newt. Annoy a liberal, vote Newt.”

Palin, when speaking about Gingrich’s proposal to have a colony on the moon by the end of the decade and before the Russians and Chinese, also said Gingrich represents an America that had “a notion that America would be first, that we would win, for our psyche, for science.”

“That is what Newt is explaining to the public,” Palin said.

Palin said there was “nothing wrong with grandiose ideas” because every politician on the national stage has them to improve the country.

“I don't think there is anything wrong with dreaming big in our nation because that is how America became an exceptional nation,” Palin said, before adding that Americans have always thought big like winners.

“In a debate, Newt Gingrich would clobber Barack Obama,” Palin said, emphasizing that in a campaign, debates are where ideas and solutions are articulated to the electorate.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49159

 

No one has, including her because she never says anything remotely intelligent.

Clearly she is the smart one in your family.

Considering your posts here it is of no surprise you feel that way. I am sure you consider yourself one of her peers and rightfully so, I might add.

That coming from such luminaries as yourself must make it so.