From American Research Group, January 15, 2010. Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley in the MA Senate race 48% to 45%.
“January 15, 2010 – Massachusetts US Senate
Massachusetts US Senate
1/14/2010
Brown
Coakley
Kennedy
Undecided
Likely voters
48%
45%
2%
5%
Registration:
Democrats (44%)
20%
71%
1%
8%
Republicans (20%)
94%
1%
–
5%
Unenrolled/
Other (36%)
58%
37%
4%
1%
Sex:
Men (47%)
54%
39%
2%
5%
Women (53%)
44%
50%
2%
4%
Age:
18-49 (43%)
52%
42%
2%
4%
50 plus (57%)
46%
47%
1%
6%
Republican Scott Brown leads Democrat Martha Coakley 48% to 45% in the special Massachusetts US Senate race to replace Senator Ted Kennedy in a telephone survey conducted January 12-14 among 600 likely voters in Massachusetts saying they will definitely vote in the special election on January 19.
Brown leads Coakley 94% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 58% to 37% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 71% to 20% among registered Democrats. A total of 8% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans remain undecided.
Brown leads 54% to 39% among men while Coakley leads 50% to 44% among women.
Brown leads 52% to 42% among likely voters age 18 to 49 and Coakley leads 47% to 46% among voters 50 and older.
A total of 9% of likely voters say they have already voted by absentee ballot, with Brown leading Coakley 58% to 42%.”
Scott Brown and Martha Coakley campaigning Saturday, January 16, 2010
From Fox News Boston.
“Coakley counts on union muscle to win Senate race”
“Democrat Martha Coakley is counting on union muscle to help her win Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.
She kicked off the final weekend of campaigning Saturday with a stop at an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers hall in Boston to encourage a group of canvassers.”
“Brown Leads Coakley 58-42 in Absentee Ballots– Coakley Losing 1 in 5 Dems to Brown …BIG UPDATE: BROWN PRESS CONFERENCE- PRESSING CHARGES AGAINST DEM PARTY”
“One in five democrats in Massachusetts is going with Scott Brown.
And, there’s more bad news for democrat Martha Coakley…
Scott Brown is leading in the absentee voting 58-42. 9% of registered voters said they have already cast a ballot.
Real Clear Politics reported:
Coakley loses one-in-five Democrats to Brown, while the Republican state senator has 94 percent of Republicans behind him. Brown has a commanding 58-37 advantage among “unenrolled” voters, mainly independents and those who prefer not to register affiliation with the major parties.”
“Dan Winslow, counsel for the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate campaign, will hold a media availability to announce the filing of a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party regarding a recent mailing paid for and sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Winslow will make a statement and take reporters’ questions at MassGOP Headquarters in Boston TODAY at 4:00 PM.”
“Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race”
“Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy – and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”
Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.
The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.
“Either Brown’s momentum accelerates and his lead widens, or this becomes a wake-up call for Coakley to become the ‘Comeback Kid’ this weekend,” Paleologos said.
And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.
The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled.”
Catholic Families for America, CFA, has endorsed Scott Brown for the MA senate seat.
From the Christian News Wire, January 13, 2010.
“Catholic Families for America Endorses Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senate Seat”
“CFA Executive Director: “For voters of conscience in Massachusetts, the choice is clear: Scott Brown is a traditional values public servant who would bring a refreshing voice of common sense to the U. S. Senate. We applaud him for reminding the political class in Washington that this is not ‘the Kennedy seat — it’s the people’s seat.'””
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ — Dr. Kevin Roberts, executive director of the Catholic grassroots advocacy group, Catholic Families for America (CFA), announced the organization’s endorsement of Scott Brown in next Tuesday’s special election for the U.S. Senate.
“”Scott would be such an upgrade on every major issue from the late Teddy Kennedy,” Roberts said. “Furthermore, his opponent, who espouses the same anti-life, anti-family, anti-values agenda that made Kennedy such a tragic figure to the Church, should give Catholic, Christian, and values voters an easy choice next Tuesday.””
“”Our republic cannot withstand a long period of liberal, anti-family super-majorities in Congress,” Roberts explained. “If Scott Brown surprises the pundits next week, then we know that the end is near for the abject failures of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.””
A warning to the Democrat Party from the Washington Post (hardly a conservative rag) to listen to the American public and embrace centrist viewpoints.
“Keep the Big Tent big”
“The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith’s decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation’s majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent — that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party’s ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama’s victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, “true” Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.
The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year’s off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents — many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower — 41 percent — among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup’s generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.”
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”…Matthew 6:24
Congressman Bart Stupak is being bullied by the Obama thugs to remain silent and accept the Reid Nelson compromise that allows taxpayer financing of abortions.
“Greta Interviews Bart Stupak over White House Bullying”
From Life News, December 23, 2009.
“Stupak: Obama Admin Bullying Me to Accept Abortion Funding in Health Care”
“Congressman Bart Stupak, the pro-life Democrat who has been the consistent champion against abortion funding in the health care bill, says the Obama administration is trying to bully him. Stupak says in a new interview that he will not back down in the face of pressure from the White House.
Stupak told CNS News that the White House and top Congressional Democrats are attempting to twist his arm to accept the Reid-Nelson “compromise” language that still allows massive taxpayer financing of abortions.
“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews Tuesday.
“Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here,” Stupak said defiantly.
Stupak said the White House specifically requested that he not talk about the Nelson sellout and the language that the Senate has approved via the Reid manager’s amendment.
Stupak said that the White House “asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language.”
He told the conservative news outlet, “But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.’ Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed.””
“Stupak said after Nelson’s compromise that he will not back down and will “hold firm” against abortion funding.”
Weeks before I read the Wall Street Journal article below, I knew that ObamaCare would raise rates for existing health care policy holders and that the impact would happen sooner than later. Several weeks ago, a close personal friend informed me that their Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance premium had been significantly raised. When this person called the insurance office, they were told it was happening across the board. I then ran into a friend of mine who works for Blue Cross Blue Shield. The friend confirmed the story and stated that their rates had also been increased.
From the Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009.
“Blue Cross Blue Patients”
“Another day, another study confirming that ObamaCare will increase the price of health insurance. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has found that premiums in the individual market will rise on average by 54% over the status quo, which translates into an extra $3,341 a year for families and $1,576 for singles. The White House denounced the report as a “sham” before it was even released, which shows how seriously it takes such concerns.
The Congressional Budget Office also found this week that ObamaCare will boost premiums in the individual market by as much as 13%. But the White House called that a triumph because the higher costs will be offset by taxpayer subsidies that will be transferred to the federal balance sheet.
The Blue Cross study is in fact more precise than CBO’s because it is based on real market data, rather than modeling assumptions. The association mined the actuarial data from its six million individual or small-business policies, nearly one-eighth of those sold in the U.S.”
“”And you can bet as we continue to make progress,” communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog, “the insurance industry will continue to try and distract and misinform because they know their very profitable status quo is in grave danger.” He must be referring to the industry’s overall profit margin of 2.2% in 2008.”
Barack Obama, the Obama camp and the Democrat Party continue to attack Sarah Palin. They are openly, flagrantly, requesting donations to continue their Orwellian attacks on Palin. Attacking Palin is attacking America, American values and us, the American people. If they want war with the American people, by God they will get it.
Yesterday, November 20, 2009, the Citizen Wells blog explained that the Attacks on Sarah Palin are not just attacks on her. The attacks are also aimed at what is good about this country. This is fundamentally a struggle between good and evil. Looking back on the attacks against Sarah Palin and her family during the 2008 election, one only has to remember the comments made about Palin’s mentally challenged son, why Palin did not abort him aand the many viscious statements made about the daughter who got pregnant, to realize that evil drives this agenda. Attacks on Sarah Palin and America, Good Vs Evil
Organizing for America, BarackObama.com, is requesting donations to fight Sarah Palin. They accuse her of lying and deception. Talk about audacity. Obama and his thugs are the masters of lies and deception. Big brother of “1984” could have learned much from them. The Organizing for America website has Barack Obama in it’s .com name. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party must take ownership in it’s content.
Help us raise $500,000 in the next week to push back against Sarah Palin and her special interest allies.
Whatever lie Sarah Palin comes up with next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform.
And as we approach the final sprint on health reform, we can’t afford more deception and delay. We need to be ready for anything — and have the resources to respond with ads, events, and calls to Congress when the attacks come.
So we’re setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies. Can you chip in to help reach our goal?
Barack Obama, the Obama camp and the Democrat party continue to use Chicago style intimidation to attempt to shut down all opposition to their radical socialist agenda. They used Nazi brownshirt and Orwellian threats in 2008 to steal the election. Now they are focusing their attention on a good American, Sarah Palin and her family. What they did not count on is that Palin resonates with the American public. When they attack Palin, they attack us and we are not going to take it.
“What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.”…Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV)
“I took with me certain simple criteria with which to measure.
That which made for more life, for physical and spiritual health, was good;
that which made for less life, which hurt, dwarfed and distorted life, was bad.”…Jack London
“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”… George Orwell “1984”
Lies
Leftists
Liberalism
If you are offended by references to the Bible, good versus evil or anything that is not politically correct, you are in the wrong place.
Everyone is tap dancing around the attacks on Sarah Palin. People with the best of intentions speak of her as a conservative female threatening the philosophies and positions of those on the left. Let’s call this what it is. This is a classic struggle between good and evil, right versus wrong.
The modern day Democrat Party is controlled by far left socialists who are driven by a message of hate. Hate George Bush, Hate America and recently Hate Sarah Palin. The Beatles, in their song “Revolution”, had this to say:
“But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait”
“You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow”
It seems the leftist Democrats have covered all the bases. Hate, change the Constitution and carrying pictures of Chairman Mao (Anita Dunn).
Sarah Palin is not a perfect person, her humanity prevents that. She is, however a good person who loves her family, her country and follows her moral compass, her concept of God, the creator of all. She is against many of the ideological positions that have slowly taken hold of this country.
Sarah Palin represents what is right about this country. She tries to live her life by doing the right thing. She apparently intimidates those who believe:
Women should follow the dictates of the Democrat Party.
Abortion is always ok and should not be reserved for the lesser of evils.
There is no God.
There is no right or wrong.
The founding fathers and US Constitution are out of vogue and not relevant to modern issues.
European countries should be emulated.
A Government option will improve health care.
Global warming is real and is mainly the fault of Americans.
An endangered fish is more important than endangered humans.
Drilling for oil is always wrong.
Terrorists are regular criminals with constitutional rights.
Patriotism, Religion and Guns are not fashionable.
I am next going to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. The life and tenets of Jesus are known by Christians, Jews and Muslims, so most of you should understand what I am about to write. While Sarah Palin cannot be compared to Jesus on one level, reactions to the good in Sarah Palin and other children of the light are paralleled in the reactions to Jesus, his teachings and actions. The hypocrites and evil doers of Jesus’ time attacked him and demanded his crucifixion.
The modern day hypocrites have put Sarah Palin under a microscope. They employ legions to fact check her statements and her new book and gave Barack Obama a free ride on his books and election campaign. As Jesus would state, they look for a speck in Palin’s eye and ignore the beam in theirs.
I wish to make an important point. It is ok to disgree with Sarah Palin. Since Palin embraces American values, she would be the first to agree. It is not ok to trash, lie about and attack Sarah Palin. This is wrong (remember, most of us believe in right and wrong.) When you attack Sarah Palin, you attack America and decent Americans and we are not going to take it anymore.
This is fair warning to those, and I do not care who you are, who viciously attack Sarah Palin. If you are a company like NewsWeek, that belittled Palin with the sexist magazine cover, we are going to boycott you. If you are a politician, we are going to run you out of office. If I personally hear someone attack Palin, I am going to quietly get in their face and ask why they hate America. I suggest you do the same.
Generally, I do believe we should pray for those who have lost their way. However, there is a concept called righteous indignation. A response, sadly lacking in many of those who profess to be Christians. And how ironic. Jesus, who was all about love for thy neighbor, entered the temple, saw the moneychanger’s wrongful acts, and overturned the tables in righteous indignation.
The lesson is simple. We must rise up in righteous indignation and say no more to attacks on Sarah Palin and others.
And be certain you are clear about this.
This is a struggle between good and evil.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”… Ephesians 6:12.
Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate, and now author of a new book, “Going Rogue”, was interviewed by Rush Limbaugh today, Tuesday, November 17, 2009.
Here are some exerpts from the transcripts:
“RUSH: We are going to open this hour with a rare personal interview, a rare guest. It doesn’t happen much on this program, but we are happy to have with us former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose book, Going Rogue, hits the shelves today and it’s already headed for I think a record in sales. Governor Palin, thanks for making time. It’s great to talk to you again. We spoke last Thursday in an interview for the Limbaugh Letter, but it’s great to have you here on the radio.
GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you so much, and dittos from an Alaskan.
RUSH: Where are you, by the way? Where are we speaking to you from?
GOV. PALIN: In a hotel room in New York City. I’m going to do a couple of interviews after that and then head to Grand Rapids for the kickoff of the book tour.
RUSH: This is going to be exciting. Are you looking forward to that?
GOV. PALIN: I am so looking forward to this. I cannot wait to meet some of these good Americans all across this country. It’s going to be a blast.
RUSH: They can’t wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign. That stuff you’ll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign. So Governor Palin what I’d like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy. We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in sight. The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do differently than is being done now?
GOV. PALIN: It’s over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and are not applying for unemployment benefits. So it’s bad, it’s really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that’s an uncomfortable place for our country to be. What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we’re doing right now with the Fed, it’s not working. We need to cut taxes on the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more. But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that’s not even being discussed. In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go.
RUSH: You mean that you don’t even hear it being discussed on the Republican side or within the administration?
GOV. PALIN: Within the administration, and as it is discussed on the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it. Independents need to be bolder about that solution that has got to be considered and plugged in. This is the only solution that will be successful. We need to rehash some history that proves its success. Let’s go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those commonsense free market principles that worked. He faced a tougher recession than what we’re facing today. He cut those taxes, ramped up industry, and we pulled out of that recession. We need to revisit that.
RUSH: Why do you think this administration is ignoring that blueprint? What is their ultimate objective here? They’re sitting in the middle of abject failure of their number-one stated goal, and that’s job creation. So what are they really trying to do here do you think?
GOV. PALIN: Well, you wonder, you wonder because history proves what will work and you wonder if they’re realizing that and if it’s just perhaps a stubbornness at this point that they are so committed to going down this road of growing government and interjecting the Feds’ control in the private sector more and more, which will prove to be more failure. I don’t know if it’s obstinate thinking that they’re engaged in right now or if they truly just do not believe what the free market, free enterprise economic solutions are that built up this country.
RUSH: Do you think this is going to be a major issue in the congressional elections in 2010, and if so, how would you advise Republicans to pursue it?
GOV. PALIN: It better be a major issue, absolutely. Of course, national security will be, too, and hopefully we’ll talk a little bit about some of the decisions being made in that arena that cause so many of us concern but, yeah, the economy, that’s what it’s going to be because it’s all about jobs, it’s all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so commonsense that need to be plugged in. And those are Republican, they’re commonsense conservative principles that we just need to apply.
RUSH: New York-23 is being portrayed as a race in which you and I — because we supposedly went up there — handpicked Doug Hoffman, he supposedly lost, even though that race, they still haven’t finished counting the votes. It’s two weeks! This is not Chicago. They haven’t finished counting the votes. He says he wishes he could un-concede now. But they’re trying to diminish conservatism, and I think in the process intimidate the Republican Party from going in that direction. What’s your read on New York-23?
GOV. PALIN: I think this is exciting. It’s encouraging. No matter the outcome even with his recount of some of those, well, uncounted ballots, it’s exciting that the race is going to be even closer, and it’s a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking, even in a district there in New York, they are seeking commonsense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we’re facing. I’m glad to see this.
RUSH: So the positive thing there is that the Republican Party was rebuffed in nominating essentially a RINO, a liberal?
GOV. PALIN: Well, I think what you saw there is — and of course it’s not just the Republican machine, it’s the Democrat machine, too. You know, if you’re not the anointed one within the machine, sometimes you have a much tougher row to hoe and that’s what Hoffman faced. He was the underdog. I think great timing for him, though, to stand strong on his conservative credentials and essentially come out of nowhere and prove that an American without that resume, without that machine backing can truly make a difference in an election like this.
RUSH: Well, now, you used the term, “If you’re not the anointed one by the party machine, you’re the underdog and you have a tough row to hoe.” Based on things that I read, the Republican establishment would not anoint you to be a nominee of their party should you choose to go that way. I’m not asking you the question because I know you’re not going to answer and give away what your plans are in 2012.
GOV. PALIN: (chuckles)
RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?
GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It’s not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It’s more of a business — and, no, I’m not a part of that. So if they’re going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I’ll never be a part of that. But hopefully we’re going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we’re going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we’re going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.
RUSH: All right, independents, slash, third party. A lot of people — mistakenly, in my view — are looking at New York-23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that’s not a good example because there was no primary there. As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat. Had there been a primary, New York-23 would not have been constituted as it was. So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can’t be brought around?
GOV. PALIN: You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it’s a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America’s political system. And we are a two-party system. Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don’t think America is ready for that. I think that it is… Granted it’s quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that’s what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I’m not an obsessive panther, I understand why people — good people like my own husband — refuse to register in a party. Todd’s not a Republican and yet he’s got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. But in answer to your question, I don’t think that the third party movement will be what’s necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals.”
Citizen WElls 