Murkowski win a blow to Palin's influence

  • Thread starter Thread starter colmywaykurtz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it amazing that we have a several page thread about the possible failing influence of a woman who holds no public office who supported a range of candidates with a few losing in races that should never have been close to begin with but no thread about the failing influence of a President that lost over 60 house seats and 6 senate seats in an election cycle that he campaigned heavily in.
 
SamH said:
I find it amazing that we have a several page thread about the possible failing influence of a woman who holds no public office who supported a range of candidates with a few losing in races that should never have been close to begin with but no thread about the failing influence of a President that lost over 60 house seats and 6 senate seats in an election cycle that he campaigned heavily in.
Click to expand...
Point well taken! Start a thread on that subject.
 
The ads for Palins new show dictates to me, that she would not be serious about the President position, she would always be looking toward the wilderness of Alaska in the back of her mind.
 
clinoforms said:
murkowski had the support of the liberals because she is pro abortion women and supports the native corporations who make billions on lucrative government contracts.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that last something that would appeal to conservatives - support for successful big businesses within the state?
 
Bama_In_Bama said:
The ads for Palins new show dictates to me, that she would not be serious about the President position, she would always be looking toward the wilderness of Alaska in the back of her mind.
Click to expand...
Id be interested in what logic if any brought you to this conclusion.
 
Bama_In_Bama said:
The ads for Palins new show dictates to me, that she would not be serious about the President position, she would always be looking toward the wilderness of Alaska in the back of her mind.
Click to expand...
So politicians are not allowed to enjoy the natural beauty of their country? They have to have their eyes on Washington constantly? That is patently absurd.
 
Tom_8_0_0 said:
So politicians are not allowed to enjoy the natural beauty of their country? They have to have their eyes on Washington constantly? That is patently absurd.
Click to expand...
What has that got to do with anything? You’ve already made up your mind, right? Why not simply join the “Run, Sarah, run” chorus?
 
colmywaykurtz said:
Who is and who isn’t “too entangled” with government? By what criteria? Is there a list or directory somewhere of who is and who isn’t?
Click to expand...
Why not start with Jeff Immelt from General Electric, which also owns NBC and MSNBC (with their pro-Democrat cheerleaders), who serves on Obama’s economic advisory commitee, and stands to have huge profits if the Democrats have their way with Cap and Trade.

How about the relationship between Washington and the Federal Reserve System (which is supposed to be independent…scratch that, which is unconstitutional), and how the last 2 Secretary of Treasury spent significant time with Goldman Sachs. You don’t see an incestuous relationship there? (Hank Paulson and Tim Gaithner)

How about Frank Raines and his position as chair of Fannie Mae and ultimately on Obama’s board of economic advisors.

What about Michael Chertoff, former DHS Secretary, selling pornoscanner machines to …DHS. Conflict of interest, no?

Those are just a few off the top of my head.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Why not start with Jeff Immelt from General Electric, which also owns NBC and MSNBC (with their pro-Democrat cheerleaders), who serves on Obama’s economic advisory commitee, and stands to have huge profits if the Democrats have their way with Cap and Trade.

How about the relationship between Washington and the Federal Reserve System (which is supposed to be independent…scratch that, which is unconstitutional), and how the last 2 Secretary of Treasury spent significant time with Goldman Sachs. You don’t see an incestuous relationship there? (Hank Paulson and Tim Gaithner)

How about Frank Raines and his position as chair of Fannie Mae and ultimately on Obama’s board of economic advisors.

What about Michael Chertoff, former DHS Secretary, selling pornoscanner machines to …DHS. Conflict of interest, no?

Those are just a few off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
I meant in Alaska.
 
SamH said:
I find it amazing that we have a several page thread about the possible failing influence of a woman who holds no public office who supported a range of candidates with a few losing in races that should never have been close to begin with but no thread about the failing influence of a President that lost over 60 house seats and 6 senate seats in an election cycle that he campaigned heavily in.
Click to expand...
It’s much tougher running against two parties though. Ask Murkowski. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top