What Reps do we Primary out next election?

[jamil]

She might have been a good governor, but like in business she was promoted to the level of incompetence.


And who's up for ranked choice voting?!

Oh, yeah. RCV FTW.

I'm not all that convinced Palin was a competent governor. She was a one-trick pony. If it wasn't oil and gas, she didn't pay it a lot of attention. And for a person who campaigned on cleaning up corruption she had her own scandals.

 

[BugI02]

If you only look at favorable stuff about Palin you'll think she was successful. Or I guess if by "successful" you mean mediocre, sure. At least she didn't try to sell any open Senator's seat to the highest bidder. So no major scandals like that.

It's not that I don't like down-home types. I kinda think that Kristi Noem is a "down home" type. And I think she's pretty smart and isn't bat **** crazy. You can have both. Let's find something like. Down home. Smart. Not bat **** crazy. Is that too much to ask from a Republican. And hell. I don't even care if it's a Republican. It's just that reality in the Democratic Party forces that person to have to be a Republican.

I think you err in expecting a governor to be anything more than an able administrator, and would not like it if you had anything else but. Think Cuomo or Whitmer

I don't think you can successfully select very well for that something extra that governers like Noem and DeSantis have. I think you pick someone highly competent for the 99% of the time you don't need real leadership, paying attention to having the balls to enable things like constitutional carry or stand your ground - and you pay attention to their ability to surround themselves with other capable people. Ideally you don't pull them straight into the governor's mansion without seeing how they do on a smaller stage

Noem was in the SD House for two terms and represented SD in the US House for four

DeSantis was a JAG and attached to SOCOM, represented Florida in the US House for four years and was running for Rubio's senate seat when he withdrew in deference to Rubio when Rubio withdrew from the presidential race

Neither of those two were an unknown quantity when they made it to the national stage, and had acquitted themselves admirably down in the trenches

Conversely, Mourdock had tried to go directly to the US House and lost three out of three elections, then managed to get elected to the Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners for a few years before managing to get elected state treasurer and then lost to Donnelly in his senate bid

Note the difference in the trajectories of success. Nothing about Mourdock would lead one to believe he would actually be successful even if he prevailed, whereas Noem and DeSantis were successful at everything the attempted. That shows good judgement and a realistic assessment of their appeal

Not very much about Sarah Palin was anything like the caricature Hollywood and the media made of her. She wasn't ready for the big stage, but I think she could have handled it. Where it mattered, she had not put a foot wrong in consequential decisions as governor, and she certainly hadn't said as many stupid things as Biden or Pelosi or AOC

You don't make the 2nd assistant manager CEO and you look at chops on the smaller stage before you put someone totally in charge of anything in order to limit the amount of damage they can do while you see if they sink or swim

 

[BugI02]

I'm not all that convinced Palin was a competent governor. She was a one-trick pony. If it wasn't oil and gas, she didn't pay it a lot of attention. And for a person who campaigned on cleaning up corruption she had her own scandals.

Cites, there, fair and balanced?

 

[jamil]

Cites, there, fair and balanced?

This was from conversations with some Alaskans years ago about their thoughts on Palin’s governorship. They had both voted for Palin. The things they were disappointed with her about was that she ran on oil and gas tax reform, and cleaning up corruption. And they felt she did okay on those two things notwithstanding her own scandals. That she didn’t accomplish anything else. They were also pissed because they felt she abandoned Alaska by resigning.

As far as my own opinion about her stupid streak, she sure comes off as an idiot in her interviews. Now this might not satisfy your call for cites as to why I might hold a completely different opinion of her than you do. You know, because citations for opinions are so common on the internet forums. I don’t have an ideological reason to like or dislike her so I feel pretty free to just call it like I see it. She’s a kook. And she comes off that way because she’s not very well suited for the national stage.

 

[BugI02]

You said in the first post, and again above, that she had her scandals but give no further documentation. It would be difficult to not conclude you are just throwing shade on someone you already dislike - which is kind of becoming something of an M.O.

So, as someone who carefully compares all sides of an issue, did you just take the word of some random Alaskans. I would bet any scandals were covered in the local papers and could be researched. Just exactly what were her scandals? If you don't actually know of any, should you be repeating the claim?

 

[jamil]

You said in the first post, and again above, that she had her scandals but give no further documentation. It would be difficult to not conclude you are just throwing shade on someone you already dislike - which is kind of becoming something of an M.O.

So, as someone who carefully compares all sides of an issue, did you just take the word of some random Alaskans. I would bet any scandals were covered in the local papers and could be researched. Just exactly what were her scandals? If you don't actually know of any, should you be repeating the claim?

Are you not curious?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh, yeah. RCV FTW.

I'm not all that convinced Palin was a competent governor. She was a one-trick pony. If it wasn't oil and gas, she didn't pay it a lot of attention. And for a person who campaigned on cleaning up corruption she had her own scandals.

Given that Alaska runs on the oil and gas industries, doing well there is huge in terms ofvgge state economy and the individual economies of its citizens. As for scandals, petty business like a pregnant daughter weighed against Murkowski's unrestrained corruption seems to be a pretty hard sell.

 

[jamil]

Given that Alaska runs on the oil and gas industries, doing well there is huge in terms ofvgge state economy and the individual economies of its citizens. As for scandals, petty business like a pregnant daughter weighed against Murkowski's unrestrained corruption seems to be a pretty hard sell.

Like I said, she did clean house. But she also tried to use her power as Governor to punish people personally. That’s one of the scandals I recall from back then. I don’t count the other stuff you mentioned as scandals. That’s mostly reality TV for reals.

 

[BugI02]

Are you not curious?

I've already looked it up. I'm waiting for the guy who carefully looks at all sides of an issue to get off the blocks on that process

 

[Twangbanger]

I used to think so to but we have Lugar II in there now anyway, albeit not with the power of a 4-decade Senator. Yet. And as nutty as Mourdock is/was I'd vote for him too over Lugar, Donnelly, or Braun, and just roll my eyes at his religious stains all over his shirt sleeves. But, if we have our druthers, how about we don't send bat **** crazy people to primary the RINOs we don't like in the first place. Okay? Why do Republican heroes always have to be so crazy? Can't we find sane people who care about America? We keep digging up idiots like Sarah Palin.

I think there's where your "grasp of reality" criterion bites you. Any office-seeker with a dose of sense intuitively grasps that it's a heck of a lot easier to make yourself rich in the halls of power, than it is to "care about America." For someone to (eg.) turn down lobbying money from entities trying to destroy America as we know it, and do the "right thing" as we INGO types see it, requires someone with a less-than-maximum regard for their own self-interest. In other words, someone whose grasp of reality is in question. Why turn down the wealth in a nearly pointless attempt to do the right thing? When it's just so damn much easier, and ultimately more sensible and feasible, to pursue the course of action which pads your pile?

Some would say, for example, that Wayne LaPierre has a firm grasp of reality*. And I'd be hard-pressed to dispute it. He's got reality in the palms of his hands and he's choking the schit out of it. The man is nothing if not a master of reality. He knows how to make it work for him. He's the Goldman Sachs of Gun Rights.

Alternately, if you listen to Ted Nugent rambling about something, I'm guessing a decent percent of "your type" would find him to be about like Sarah Palin or Marjorie Greene. (He plays a Byrdland through a Marshall stack, chrissakes). But if you could swing the magic wand tomorrow, who would you rather have running the NRA? I'd take Nugent over LaPierre, any day. He'd flame out eventually over some unfortunate foot-in-mouth gag or another, but while he was there, I would wager his actions would be more directionally-correct than WLP. Maybe not in the Wharton / Goldman Sachs sense. But in the "gives a schit about America and the little people in it" sense.

This day in age, I think leaders on the Right who aren't at least a little bit batschit-crazy, are all eventually going to fall into the same pile and not be effective. Because they're going to fall prey to the same "reasonable" influences which mark them as "not crazy" in the first place - which is to ultimately conclude that retiring someplace tropical with their Peloton-assed Harvard-educated wife and the accolades of their peers, is a heckuva lot more sensible and grounded in reality, than fighting the good fight and going back to Mayberry Texas to practice law at best, or hoping the NY AG doesn't handcuff you to your death-bed at worst.

*Assuming for the moment that those who make it past sentence #2, grasp that leadership examples can be taken from outside government without altering the point being made.

 

[Tombs]

This was from conversations with some Alaskans years ago about their thoughts on Palin’s governorship. They had both voted for Palin. The things they were disappointed with her about was that she ran on oil and gas tax reform, and cleaning up corruption. And they felt she did okay on those two things notwithstanding her own scandals. That she didn’t accomplish anything else. They were also pissed because they felt she abandoned Alaska by resigning.

As far as my own opinion about her stupid streak, she sure comes off as an idiot in her interviews. Now this might not satisfy your call for cites as to why I might hold a completely different opinion of her than you do. You know, because citations for opinions are so common on the internet forums. I don’t have an ideological reason to like or dislike her so I feel pretty free to just call it like I see it. She’s a kook. And she comes off that way because she’s not very well suited for the national stage.

It's funny thinking back to the 2008 election.

Palin being so stereotypical northern shut-in behaving was enough to pretty much sink McCain's campaign. Yet hillary faking a southern accent obviously, and saying "pokemon go... to the polls" didn't even register for the media.

I think it speaks volumes of how the media has always been as insane as they are now.
The only thing that has changed is far more people no longer regard any of them as credible.

 

[JettaKnight]

I used to think so to but we have Lugar II in there now anyway, albeit not with the power of a 4-decade Senator. Yet. And as nutty as Mourdock is/was I'd vote for him too over Lugar, Donnelly, or Braun, and just roll my eyes at his religious stains all over his shirt sleeves. But, if we have our druthers, how about we don't send bat **** crazy people to primary the RINOs we don't like in the first place. Okay? Why do Republican heroes always have to be so crazy? Can't we find sane people who care about America? We keep digging up idiots like Sarah Palin.

TBF, the Democratic heroes are even crazier... a la AOC.

 

[jamil]

I've already looked it up. I'm waiting for the guy who carefully looks at all sides of an issue to get of the blocks on that process

Scandals. There were a few but like I said I don't count the drama ones. But I do count the drama ones where people use the power of the state against other people for personal reasons. But let's not make this more than it is. I say something critical of your goddess and you want to lash back. Okay. Noted.

 

[jamil]

I think there's where your "grasp of reality" criterion bites you. Any office-seeker with a dose of sense intuitively grasps that it's a heck of a lot easier to make yourself rich in the halls of power, than it is to "care about America." For someone to (eg.) turn down lobbying money from entities trying to destroy America as we know it, and do the "right thing" as we INGO types see it, requires someone with a less-than-maximum regard for their own self-interest. In other words, someone whose grasp of reality is in question. Why turn down the wealth in a nearly pointless attempt to do the right thing? When it's just so damn much easier, and ultimately more sensible and feasible, to pursue the course of action which pads your pile?

I think you're unnecessarily conflating "unprincipled" with "grasps reality". One can be principled, and have a grasp on reality. Sometimes principle becomes unreasonable and that is where such a person has lost a grasp of reality. Unreasonable principles cause people to say and do bat **** crazy things. But, I've already conceded that I'd rather have a bat **** crazy person who happens to do what I want than a completely sane but corrupt person doing everything I don't want.

Some would say, for example, that Wayne LaPierre has a firm grasp of reality*. And I'd be hard-pressed to dispute it. He's got reality in the palms of his hands and he's choking the schit out of it. The man is nothing if not a master of reality. He knows how to make it work for him. He's the Goldman Sachs of Gun Rights.

Again, it's like you're saying that "grasps reality" and sound principles can't live in the same space.

Alternately, if you listen to Ted Nugent rambling about something, I'm guessing a decent percent of "your type" would find him to be about like Sarah Palin or Marjorie Greene. (He plays a Byrdland through a Marshall stack, chrissakes). But if you could swing the magic wand tomorrow, who would you rather have running the NRA?

I don't want a crazy guy like Ted Nugent running it. I'd like credibility to accompany the next head of the NRA. Would I take Ted Nugent over WLP? Well, at this point I'd take just about any strong 2A supporter over WLP, and for all his crazyness, Ted is a strong 2A supporter.

This day in age, I think leaders on the Right who aren't at least a little bit batschit-crazy, are all eventually going to fall into the same pile and not be effective. Because they're going to fall prey to the same "reasonable" influences which mark them as "not crazy" in the first place - which is to ultimately conclude that retiring someplace tropical with their Peloton-assed Harvard-educated wife and the accolades of their peers, is a heckuva lot more sensible and grounded in reality, than fighting the good fight and going back to Mayberry Texas to practice law at best, or hoping the NY AG doesn't handcuff you to your death-bed at worst.

*Assuming for the moment that those who make it past sentence #2, grasp that leadership examples can be taken from outside government without altering the point being made.

It sounds like you're saying that to be effective, one has to be at least a little bat **** crazy. And I don't think that's true at all. Some people just flat out get it, are competent in just about everything they touch, and have the ability to communicate their ideas. I've worked with some, not a lot, of people like that over the years. They're fairly rare.

We don't need a Sarah Palin. She's got too much tabloid trailer park in her to be competent of much past stringing people along to be certain she's one of them. Trump couldn't get it done either. And I'll say he turned out to be way more effective than I thought. But everything he did is being undone, because he couldn't win in the end.

I think competent, principled people exist and I'd rather we get one of those than an idiot. I don't think the right can move the needle without someone who can articulate a better message than the Democrats.

 

[jamil]

TBF, the Democratic heroes are even crazier... a la AOC.

Which is why I don't vote for Democrats. But then I'm stuck with some of the crazier Republicans. I dunno. Maybe the gene pool is just too ****ed up that we can't find sane and good.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

But everything he did is being undone, because he couldn't win in the end.

And that's why so many of us want more people that think like he did and were on board with what he was accomplishing. I don't call that bat-**** crazy. It's that those things were in line with what his supporters wanted to see done, and he did well at it. Better than any politician I can think of in recent history.

 

[BugI02]

I think there's where your "grasp of reality" criterion bites you. Any office-seeker with a dose of sense intuitively grasps that it's a heck of a lot easier to make yourself rich in the halls of power, than it is to "care about America." For someone to (eg.) turn down lobbying money from entities trying to destroy America as we know it, and do the "right thing" as we INGO types see it, requires someone with a less-than-maximum regard for their own self-interest. In other words, someone whose grasp of reality is in question. Why turn down the wealth in a nearly pointless attempt to do the right thing? When it's just so damn much easier, and ultimately more sensible and feasible, to pursue the course of action which pads your pile?

Some would say, for example, that Wayne LaPierre has a firm grasp of reality*. And I'd be hard-pressed to dispute it. He's got reality in the palms of his hands and he's choking the schit out of it. The man is nothing if not a master of reality. He knows how to make it work for him. He's the Goldman Sachs of Gun Rights.

Alternately, if you listen to Ted Nugent rambling about something, I'm guessing a decent percent of "your type" would find him to be about like Sarah Palin or Marjorie Greene. (He plays a Byrdland through a Marshall stack, chrissakes). But if you could swing the magic wand tomorrow, who would you rather have running the NRA? I'd take Nugent over LaPierre, any day. He'd flame out eventually over some unfortunate foot-in-mouth gag or another, but while he was there, I would wager his actions would be more directionally-correct than WLP. Maybe not in the Wharton / Goldman Sachs sense. But in the "gives a schit about America and the little people in it" sense.

This day in age, I think leaders on the Right who aren't at least a little bit batschit-crazy, are all eventually going to fall into the same pile and not be effective. Because they're going to fall prey to the same "reasonable" influences which mark them as "not crazy" in the first place - which is to ultimately conclude that retiring someplace tropical with their Peloton-assed Harvard-educated wife and the accolades of their peers, is a heckuva lot more sensible and grounded in reality, than fighting the good fight and going back to Mayberry Texas to practice law at best, or hoping the NY AG doesn't handcuff you to your death-bed at worst.

*Assuming for the moment that those who make it past sentence #2, grasp that leadership examples can be taken from outside government without altering the point being made.

If the self-dealing were required to factor the possibility of a long drop on a short length of rope into their calculus, the outcome of that equation could be changed. Selling your country down the river should always be fatal. I would step up and pull the lever on Kerry

 

[jamil]

And that's why so many of us want more people that think like he did and were on board with what he was accomplishing. I don't call that bat-**** crazy. It's that those things were in line with what his supporters wanted to see done, and he did well at it. Better than any politician I can think of in recent history.

Well, I can see people being on board with many of the things he was accomplishing, but he lost most of the people who might have supported him if they didn't have TDS. He was BIGLY responsible for a lot of the TDS. I don't think we need crazy. We need a strong leader who can handle the press better than Trump did. A good chunk of the TDS goes away if Trump were saner. Especially if he could communicate without coming off as an idiot.

 

[jamil]

If the self-dealing were required to factor the possibility of a long drop on a short length of rope into their calculus, the outcome of that equation could be changed. Selling your country down the river should always be fatal. I would step up and pull the lever on Kerry

Now there's something we both agree with.

 

[BugI02]

Scandals. There were a few but like I said I don't count the drama ones. But I do count the drama ones where people use the power of the state against other people for personal reasons. But let's not make this more than it is. I say something critical of your goddess and you want to lash back. Okay. Noted.

No, actually it is quite a bit more than that. You used a standard of information, the testimony of random friends who you presumably approve of politics-wise, as a substitute for the 'looking at all sides of an issue and then deciding' you are always working so hard to sell. If another INGOer had done the same, your derision would have been scathing

What you described isn't weighing all sides of an issue, it sounds more like mutual masturbation/confirmation bias over drinks

What I'm interested in, when you claim the mantle of Lustitia, is seeing what sources you went to to make your determination. There should be several and they should fall on both sides of the JK triangulation point if you are what you claim

BTW, I had only to use the wiki as a précis, and then read the stories in the ADN and the FDN-Miner to get a perspective on the 'scandals'

Where available, I prefer local papers as a source for these sorts of thing