Is Palin causing a schism in the GOP?

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by epchick

If your saying she's qualified because she's a U.S. citizen and "of age" to be VP, then fine she's qualified. Otherwise, no she's definitely not.

So youre saying shes more qualified than Obama?

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

So youre saying shes more qualified than Obama?

Haha.

I'm not a big fan of her, but it's not just her that's bothered me. The "dumb" wing of the Republican party has grown too much. I realize that its the voting block that has carried us, but uh, they weren't actually supposed to run for things. The Republican party used to be the intelligent small-government guys, but now we have Palin and big-government social conservatives like Huckabee. The small government low taxes side of the Republican party may be taking a back seat to the "oh my god abortion and gay marriage!" portion, which quite frankly I don't care about at all since being opposed to gun-control is about the only social position the Republican party takes that is material to me.

[UGAalum94]

So, basically, you're going with a social conservatives are dumb position?

ETA: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129703.html
Have libertarians been driven out?

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So, basically, you're going with a social conservatives are dumb position?

ETA: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129703.html
Have libertarians been driven out?

Social conservatives aren't necessarily dumb, but they are the part of the party who's views don't align with mine. If they are also fiscal conservatives I am fine with them, because social things really aren't "voting issues" for me. People who vote only because of "ohmygod the gays!"? Yeah, they're dumb. The only reason you vote is over concern about an issue that in all likelihood you can't do anything about and that doesn't affect you anyways? Not entirely rational.

And I don't know that libertarians have been driven out, but if it goes to people like Huck and Palin, conservatives are going to be driven out. Conservatism had nothing to do with putting god in everything and stifling science, or with having a government big enough to tell people what they can't do. We're at an inflection point where we can either go back to being a party of small government conservatives who don't like big government and big rapid changes, or go ahead and fully make the switch to being a party of anti-intellectual idealogues.

And I think it's clear which direction I hope that inflection point goes.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

Social conservatives aren't necessarily dumb, but they are the part of the party who's views don't align with mine. If they are also fiscal conservatives I am fine with them, because social things really aren't "voting issues" for me. People who vote only because of "ohmygod the gays!"? Yeah, they're dumb. The only reason you vote is over concern about an issue that in all likelihood you can't do anything about and that doesn't affect you anyways? Not entirely rational.

And I don't know that libertarians have been driven out, but if it goes to people like Huck and Palin, conservatives are going to be driven out. Conservatism had nothing to do with putting god in everything and stifling science, or with having a government big enough to tell people what they can't do. We're at an inflection point where we can either go back to being a party of small government conservatives who don't like big government and big rapid changes, or go ahead and fully make the switch to being a party of anti-intellectual idealogues.

And I think it's clear which direction I hope that inflection point goes.

Why are you saying that Palin isn't a fiscal conservative? And what evidence do you have of her advancing a particularly socially conservative agenda in office? Huckabee, I'm with you.

We know that she's opposed to abortion. We know that she's personally religious. But she vetoed some kind of anti-gay legislation because if conflicted with the Alaska constitution and she's made no efforts to promote creationism or suppress sex ed.

So although she appeals to a socially conservative base, are you really sure that you are categorizing her correctly? Palin and Huckabee? I think the evidence is that she is small government and maybe more libertarian than you think.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Why are you saying that Palin isn't a fiscal conservative? And what evidence do you have of her advancing a particularly socially conservative agenda in office? Huckabee, I'm with you.

We know that she's opposed to abortion. We know that she's personally religious. But she vetoed some kind of anti-gay legislation because if conflicted with the Alaska constitution and she's made no efforts to promote creationism or suppress sex ed.

So although she appeals to a socially conservative base, are you really sure that you are categorizing her correctly? Palin and Huckabee? I think the evidence is that she is small government and maybe more libertarian than you think.

Of course she is small gov't minded...she RUNS a small gov't!

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

What are you saying that Palin isn't a fiscal conservative? And what evidence do you have of her advancing a particularly socially conservative agenda in office? Huckabee, I'm with you.

We know that she's opposed to abortion. We know that she's personally religious. But she vetoed some kind of anti-gay legislation because if conflicted with the Alaska constitution and she's made no efforts to promote creationism or suppress sex ed.

So although she appeals to a socially conservative base, are you really sure that you are categorizing her correctly? Palin and Huckabee?

Well, I'll retract that comparison. But I still strongly dislike her. I just think she's dumb (and possibly very much so) and because of that her running would have the same effect on the fiscal minded, better educated part of the party as running someone who is purely a social conservative. On the other hand I think Huckabee is essentially a big government democrat who just also happens to be a fundamentalist baptist. The big plus is that I think she and Huck will both run for president in 2012 and hopefully split the same part of the base and make room for Romney (who would have been a winning candidate this year and still will in 2012) to get the nomination.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

Well, I'll retract that comparison. But I still strongly dislike her. I just think she's dumb (and possibly very much so) and because of that her running would have the same effect on the fiscal minded, better educated part of the party as running someone who is purely a social conservative. On the other hand I think Huckabee is essentially a big government democrat who just also happens to be a fundamentalist baptist. The big plus is that I think she and Huck will both run for president in 2012 and hopefully split the same part of the base and make room for Romney (who would have been a winning candidate this year and still will in 2012) to get the nomination.

I think her first interviews were crappy, but I don't think she's dumb.

Once Fred dropped out, I voted for Romney in the primary. Maybe a Romney-Palin ticket wouldn't be so bad, assuming that Palin is ever viable again.

I've got no problem with Jindal either, for that matter, but what Jindal would bring in terms of intellect I think Palin surpasses in terms of charisma. But then again, I don't think she's dumb so I don't think she only brings charisma.

ETA: I think you may be kidding yourself that Romney would be a winning candidate this year. I think that Obama would have beaten him. I still hold out some hope that McCain will pull off a miracle, but I don't really think Obama was beatable by anyone with the level of support he had financially and with the press.